
tfofci of tin fatbtrt 



J LIBRARY OF CONGRESS. J 

! -»^ J i 

# # 

! UNITED STATES OF AMERICA.! 



LETTERS 



ON 



The Bucharest, 



ADDRESSED TO 



A Member of the Church of Rome, 



FORMERLY 



A PREACHER IN THE METHODIST EPISCOPAL CHURCH, 

/ BY 

E. O. PHINNEY, A. M., M. D. 



'Opa£ yap ug on irspi fjjxpojv iitfiv tjjxIv 6i X6yo»* 'aW ov tivol 
^pi7 rpoVov •ffSTio'Tcuxsvai • xai yap ou^ev 6/^ai too'outojv xaxwv 
dv^pw'7rw ygvsV^ai , otfov 'cctto <t£jv avayxaiwv otfoVav Ysv5rj its pi 

CCUTCaJV Oofa^OI. Epiphanius adv. Hcereses. 

Thou seest that our reasonings are not about things of small importance, but in what 
manner it is necessary that any one should believe ; lor surely I think that nothing is of 
so great evil to man, as to believe falsely concerning things which are necessary. 

BALTIMORE:^ 
Published for the Author, by D. H. Carroll, 

METHODIST BOOK DEPOSITORY. 

1880. 










Entered according to the Act of Congress, in the year i860, 

By E. O. Phinhet, 
In the Office of the Librarian of Congress at Washington, D. C. 



PREFACE. 



Circumstances, which it is. not needful here to 
detail, induced the writer of the several Letters, 
comprised in this volume, to investigate the claims 
of the Church of Rome to the example of the early 
church, in proof of the antiquity of her peculiar 
teachings. 

As it respects her visible worship, no one of her 
dogmas is second in pretentious importance, to that 
which respects the Eucharist. " Numerous as are 
the differences between the Catholic and Protestant 
religions," says one of her earnest advocates, "we 
may safely assert, that not one is more frequently 
discussed, or made the touchstone of the two sys- 
tems' respective claims, than their doctrine respect- 
ing the Sacrament of the Blessed Eucharist." And 
this writer expresses the belief, that more persons 
are brought to the faith of his church, by satisfying 
their minds with the Catholic belief respecting the 
Sacrament, than by being convinced upon many 
other subjects. Accordingly, we find the believers of 
a physical change, advocating it as an essentiality, 
and the sacrifice of the Mass, as the distinctive 
mark of the true Church of God. Should the dis- 
cussion of this subject, and the presentation made, 
in these communications, contribute somewhat to 
the exposure of error, and the vindication of the 
truth, the object of the writer will be realized. 



IV PREFACE. 

Most of the testimonies produced from the writ- 
ings of the ancient Christian Fathers, have been 
copied personally, and a faithful representation of 
their meaning is believed to be given, as deduced 
both from the text itself, and the subject of dis- 
course. In discussing collateral topics, it has been 
necessary, in a few instances, to refer to passages 
previously quoted, when such repetition was re- 
quired to prove a relative point. And so much 
only of the original languages of our authors is 
published, as foot notes, and in the form of an 
Appendix, as seemed desirable to enable the reader 
to form a satisfactory judgment of the propriety 
and correctness of the use made of their produc- 
tions. If it be true, as an American Statesman of 
a former generation, has said, that " Opinion is the 
queen of the world," we shall do well to be always 
ready to give a reason of our religious belief, and 
be prepared to defend it, against the sophistical 
attacks of misguided opposers. And as ability and 
opportunity involve responsibility, so no one is excus- 
able, who, so far intrusts the keeping of his spiritual 
interests to the care of another, as to neglect the 
legitimate exercise of his own understanding. 

Deeply impressed with a sense of the responsi- 
bility that attaches to the dealing with a subject 
affecting infinite issues, this endeavor is devoutly 
committed to the direction of Him, who out of weak- 
ness ordains strength, and makes the creature's 
well-meant effort, contribute to the accomplish- 
ment of the ends of His own high administration. 

E. 0. P. 

Baltimore, April, 1880. 



CONTENTS 



LETTER I. 

SEVERAL TOPICS BRIEFLY NOTICED. 

1 Exclusive claims of the Church of Rome. 2 Evangelical 
Faith and Christian Doctrine not the same. 3 Transubstan- 
tiation and Worship of the Eucharist. Of such a special 
presence of Christ's Divinity in the Sacrament as to authorize 
its worship, we have no sufficient evidence either from Scrip- 
ture or Reason. 4 Church-Infallibility not a Christian doc- 
trine. That of the Church of Rome unlike that of the Bible. 
Disproved by matter of fact. But supposing the doctrine 
revealed, it can be ascertained only by private interpretation. 
Romanists therefore self-condemned Page 1 



LETTER II. 

TRANSUBSTANTIATION STATED, AND THE DISCUSSION OF JOHN 
VI INTRODUCED. 

I. 1 Eucharistic elements denied to have been called by the 
ancient Fathers the figure of Christ's body and blood, and 
Transubstantiation affirmed to be true. 2 Real Presence 
and Transubstantiation, how different. II. Discussion of the 
sixth of St. John's Gospel introduced. 1 Circumstances which 
occasioned our Lord's Discourse, and his method of instruc- 
tion. 2 Character of his hearers. 3 Faith the subject of the 
" sacred lecture." p. 1 8 



VI CONTENTS. 

LETTER III. 

DISCUSSION OF JOHN VI CONTINUED. 

I. Were our Lord's Discourse explained as referring primarily 
to the Eucharist, it would not follow necessarily, that a ruan- 
ducation of his real flesh and a drinking of his real blood 
were intended. Reasons for not explaining this Discourse of 
the Eucharist, l The word here used is flesh, while body is 
elsewhere employed. 2 Christ's flesh not given when this sa- 
crament was instituted. 3 St. John, in his Gospel, gives no 
account of the institution. 4 The Eucharist not instituted 
when Christ delivered this Discourse. His conversation with 
Nicodemus touching Baptism, does not invalidate this argu- 
ment. 5 The consequences of partaking or not partaking, too 
momentous to be referred to " sacramental feeding." 6 The 
circumstances of delivering this Discourse, not favorable for 
proposing the doctrine of a Christian sacrament. II. 1 The 
true doctrine of the Discourse shown. 2 Christ explains his 
own language. Augustine and Athanasius quoted p. 33 

LETTER IV. 

PATRISTIC VIEWS OF OUR LORD'S DISCOURSE IN JOHN VI. 

Opinion of the Fathers respecting the Discourse of Christ 
at Capernaum. 1 Ignatius. 2 Irenseus. 3 Tertullian. 4 Cy- 
prian. 5 Clement of Alexandria. c Origen. 7 Eusebius. 
8 Athanasius. 9 Cyril of Jerusalem. 10 Basil, Bishop of Cse- 
sarea. n Jerome. 12 Augustine. Pope Innocent III. Pope 
Pius II. Gabriel Biel p. 52 

LETTER V. 

THE WORDS OF INSTITUTION. 

1 The words of Institution. Method of discussing them. 
Clement's general Rule for interpreting the Holy Scriptures. 
Home's Rule quoted. 2 Institution of the Jewish Passover 
illustrative of that of the Eucharist. Dr. Wiseman's Objec- 
tions examined p. 74 



CONTENTS. Vll 

LETTER VI. 

NECESSITY OF THE FIGURATIVE INTERPRETATION. 

The words, " This is my body," how understood by the 
modern advocates of a corporeal presence. Reasons for re- 
jecting the literal interpretation of the words of institution 
and the necessity of adopting the figurative. 1 The words 
themselves do not indicate the operation of any change in the 
substance of the bread and wine. 2 The expressions, u which 
is given," and u which is shed," forbid the literal interpreta- 
tion. 3 The words, " I will not drink henceforth of this fruit 
of the vine," also forbid it. 4 The disciples were commanded 
to celebrate the remembrance of Christ. 5 The eucharistic 
elements corruptible, Christ's real body is not. 6 The real 
body of Christ not multipresent. 7 Christ has been offered 
but once, and therefore not repeatedly sacrificed. 8 The 
Scriptures regard the evidence of the senses as reliable and 
certain. Archbishop Tillotson quoted. 9 Scripture is not re- 
pugnant to reason, but this dogma is. 10 Omnipotence can- 
not be urged in defence of this doctrine, as its advocates pre- 
sume to do. Paschasius, Hughes and Wiseman quoted. 
Tertullian and Origen quoted against this heretical practice. 
11 Several Romish divines, as Cardinal Alliaco, Scotus, Car- 
dinals Bellarmine and Cajetan, Fisher, Bishop of Rochester, 
and some others, confess the doctrine cannot be clearly proved 
from Scripture p. 89 

LETTER VII. 

VIEWS of the ante-nicene fathers. 

I. Early corruption of Christianity. Tertullian and Cyprian's 
testimony. The Fathers of the Church to be regarded not as 
our judges in matters of faith, but as credible witnesses of 
facts. Ignatius, Origen, Cyril of Jerusalem, Augustine and 
Jerome quoted. II. Testimony of the early Fathers respecting 
the body and blood of Christ in the Eucharist. * Ignatius. 
2 Justin Martyr. 3 Irenseus. 4 Tertullian. 5 Clemens Alex- 
andrinus. 6 Origen. 7 Cyprian p. 117 



Vlll CONTENTS. 

LETTER VIII. 

VIEWS OF THE POST-NICENE FATHERS. 

I. Patristic testimonies continued. x Eusebius. 2 Macarius. 
3 Cyril. 4 Nazianzen. 5 Ambrose. 6 Jerome. 7 Augustine. 
8 Facundus. 9 Isidore. II. That the bread and wine do not 
lose their proper substance in virtue of consecration is ex- 
pressly taught by, 1 Ephrem of Antioch. 2 Chrysostom. 

3 Gelasius. 4 Theodoret. III. The change believed to be 
effected in these elements is compared to other changes 
where confessedly no transmutation of substance takes place, 
by, 1 Irenaeus. 2 Cyril of Jerusalem. 3 Gregory of Nyssa. 

4 Theodotus p. 136 

LETTER IX. 

SECRET DISCIPLINE OF THE ANCIENT CHURCH. 

Undue importance attached to the Secret Discipline. I. Its 
Origin. It may be traced back to the age of Tertullian. II. 
Its Nature. The things kept secret were, x Baptism. 2 Chrism. 
3 Ordination of the clergy. 4 The Liturgy, or solemn prayers 
of the Church. 5 The Eucharist. 6 The doctrine of the Trinity 
and Incarnation, the Creed of the Church and Lord's Prayer. 
III. Its Reasons. 1 To guard the plainness and simplicity of 
the Christian rites from being despised. 2 To secure a vene- 
ration for the mysteries of the Church. 3 To excite a curiosity 
to become acquainted with them. 4 The inexperienced were 
not prepared for the reception of some of the sublime doctrines 
of Christianity. 5 Other things kept secret were considered 
inappropriate to the condition of the unbaptized. 6 The good 
of unbelievers thereby promoted. The Fathers to be inter- 
preted as other writers p. 155 

LETTER X. 

SEVERAL TERMS APPLIED TO THE EUCHARIST. 

I. According to Roman Catholics the ancient Fathers applied 
the terms figure, sign, symbol, type, antitype and image 



CONTENTS. IX 

to the Eucharist, with reference to the external appearances 
only, of the bread and wine. II. Objections to this interpreta- 
tion. l Such a sense of the terms when applied to sensible 
objects, is not sustained by good use. 2 The Fathers them- 
selves give them a meaning different from this, when they 
apply them to other things, besides the Eucharist. 3 They 
apply them to the substance of the elements. 4 They distin- 
guish the figure, sign, &c, from the reality, and make the for- 
mer inferior to the latter. III. Romanists also apply the term 
species to the external appearances of the bread and wine, — 
the Fathers, to their substance. IV. The former affirm that 
accidents exist without a subject, — the latter deny this. V. The 
Church of Rome differs from the ancients, in ascribing to the 
Eucharist properties and mode of being which the latter deny 
of all bodies p. 175 

LETTER XI. 

THE TERMS BODY AND BLOOD OP CHRIST, AND THE 
EXPRESSION, MAKING THE BODY AND BLOOD OP 

CHRIST. 

I. Several considerations showing that the Fathers, when 
speaking of the Body and Blood of Christ in the Eucharist, 
use these terms in a sense different from that given them by 
the Romish Church. 1 They sometimes connect with them an 
indefinite and restrictive term, showing that they are not used 
in their full and proper sense. 2 They give their Reasons for 
so calling them. 3 They sometimes point at something differ- 
ent from Christ's real Body and Blood. 4 They speak of his 
Body in the Eucharist as being sanctified, when the sacrament 
is consecrated ; 5 Also, as being broken and divided into 
parts, neither of which can be true of his real and glorified 
Body. II. What is meant when the Fathers speak of Making 
the Body and Blood of Christ p. 192 

LETTER XII. 

SEVERAL OTHER POINTS RELATING TO THE EUCHARIST. 

I. When the ancients say the bread and wine are changed into 
Christ's Body and Blood, they are not to be understood as 



X CONTENTS. 

meaning a transubstantiation of them. For, l They distin- 
guish the change of a thing from the abolition of its sub- 
stance. 2 They use the same language when speaking of 
other changes, in which confessedly no transmutation of 
substance takes place. II. Other considerations confirmative 
of the foregoing. 1 According to Romanists the wicked eat 
the real body of Christ, — the Fathers affirm the contrary. 
2 They differ also, when they distinguish the several ways of 
eating Christ's body. 3 The ancients teach Christ's corporal 
absence from the earth p. 205 

LETTER XIII. 

EVIDENCE OF THE SENSES PATRISTICALDY CONSIDERED. 

The Church of Rome rejects the evidence of the senses in 
the matter of the Eucharist. That the ancient Church did 
not is evident from the following. * The Fathers argue the 
certainty of the evidence of the senses. 2 They distinguish 
the outward sign from its invisible signification. 3 When 
they treat of Baptism and confirmation, they express them- 
selves in the same manner, as when they speak of the Eucha- 
rist. 4 In express terms, they affirm the certainty of the evi- 
dence of the senses. 5 Augustine appeals to their evidence 
in the matter ot the sacrament. 6 The language of Cyril 
and Chrysostom, apparently contradictory of this, recon- 
ciled p. 221 

LETTER XIV. 

HALF- COMMUNION. 

1 Communion in one kind is contrary to the practice of the 
ancient Church. 2 The Roman Church not excusable on the 
plea of her practice being one of mere discipline. 3 The 
ancient practice of communicating in both kinds, continued 
more than a thousand years. 4 The same usage proved from 
the practice of intinction, sucking the wine through quills, 
and, more anciently, the using of milk, instead of wine, by 



CONTENTS. XI 

some errorists. 5 Introduction of Half-Communion. 6 Argu- 
ments offered in defence of this usage examined. 7 The rea- 
sons assigned for it. s Some things circumstantial and others 
essential, to the right celebration of the sacrament. Roman 
"Catholics omit what is essential and therefore do not rightly 
and fully celebrate if p. 245 

LETTER XV. 

SACRIFICE OF THE MASS. 

Sacrifice of the Mass stated, according to the Council of 
Trent. The word sacrifice figuratively used in scripture and 
by the ancients. That the term, when applied to the sacra- 
ment by the Fathers, is not used in its full and proper sense 
appears from the following. l They apply the same to the 
offerings made by the people. 2 They expressly designate the 
Eucharistic sacrifice, by the terms bread and wine. 3 The 
Eucharist is called a sacrifice, on account of those religious 
acts performed by the communicants. 4 And because it is a 
commemoration and sign of the sacrifice of Christ upon the 
cross. 5 The Jews and heathen reproached the early Chris- 
tians for their want of altars and sacrifices. 6 When the Fa- 
thers call the Eucharist a sacrifice, they add such qualifying 
epithets as plainly indicate that they did not regard it as a 
proper sacrifice. The Apostles not made sacrificing priests 
at the institution of the Eucharist p. 269 

LETTER XVI. 

WORSHIP OF THE SACRAMENT. 

Worship of the sacrament stated, as found in the standards 
of the Church of Rome. I. The practice is not authorized 
by any Scripture precept. II. In view of the uncertainties of ' 
due consecration and the contingencies to which the sacra- 
ment is confessedly liable, such worship is unreasonable. 
III. It has no sanction from the ancient Church as appears 
1 From the universal silence respecting any such practice. 



Xll CONTENTS. 

2 From several usages wherein the ancient Catholic differed 
from the present Church of Rome. 3 From the objections 
made by the Christians against the inanimate and helpless 
objects of heathen worship, and the silence of the heathen 
respecting any worship of the sacrament. 4 From their teach- 
ing, expressly, that none but God is either invoked or wor- 
shiped. IV. Discussion of those passages usually quoted 
from the Fathers, to prove the worship of the Eucharist, and 
of the terms employed. V. Romanists argue a continued 
succession of miracles in this sacrament, such as are not 
claimed by the ancient and universal Church of Christ. .p. 295 

LETTER XVII. 

THE RISE, PROGRESS AND ESTABLISHMENT OF THE DOCTRINE 
OF TRANSUBSTANTIATION. 

I. Romanists consider it impossible that the change in the 
doctrine of the Eucharist affirmed by us, should ever have 
taken place. The possibility shown from l General igno- 
rance. 2 Immorality. 3 Clerical ambition. 4 Persecutions. 
6 Superstitions. II. The Rise, Progress and Establish- 
ment of Transubstantiation. l The Sacraments were early 
abused by being unduly exalted. 2 The idea of a physical 
change of the bread and wine, was first suggested by the 
heresy of Eutyches. 3 It was first introduced in the eighth 
century upon the occasion of a dispute about the worship of 
images. 4 In the ninth century a warm controversy arose in 
the Latin Church, respecting the manner in which the Body 
and Blood of Christ are present in the sacred supper. 5 In 
the tenth century, little or no controversy on the subject. 6 It 
was revived in the eleventh century, Berengarius being the 
principal leader in the opposition. 7 The doctrine remained 
unsettled in the twelfth century. 8 It was established by 
Innocent III, in the year 1215, at the fourth Lateran Coun- 
cil J p. 328 



LETTERS (M THE EUCHARIST. 



LETTER I. 

SEVERAL TOPICS BRIEFLY NOTICED. 

Dear Brother : — Since the providence of God has 
brought us within limits somewhat more narrow 
and fraternal, and especially since I have had the 
privilege of perusing your published letter to a 
brother, containing the " Reasons for embracing 
the Catholic Religion, or the Motives which lately 
influenced you to unite yourself with the Roman 
Catholic Church," I have felt a desire to avail my- 
self of the opportunity thus afforded of presenting 
my salutations to one in whom the circumstances 
referred to have awakened no small degree of inte- 
rest. And as there is no other subject which, in 
point of importance, can compare with that which 
relates to the salvation of the soul, I trust you will 
allow me to make a few suggestions relative to 
some of the sentiments advanced in your " Reasons.'' 
This liberty I take the more readily because, both 
from the language of those published " Reasons" 
and from the knowledge of your character derived 
from other sources, I believe you to be sincere in 
your professions, and a lover of the truth as you 
understand it to be in Jesus, the author and finisher 
of our faith. 

As an honest man acting from a full persuasion 
of the rectitude of his cause, you have expressed 
yourself frankly and boldly. Allow me to do the 
same without violating good nature, brotherly affec- 
tion or Christian charity. 
1 



A ON THE EUCHARIST. 

1. Without attempting a formal review of your 
letter, permit me to say, that you appear to me to 
have assumed as true what requires stronger proof 
than you have produced ; namely, that the Roman 
Church is the only true church, to which alone the 
promises were made, within whose pale alone salva- 
tion can be found, and whose pastors are the only 
successors of the apostles, and alone authorized to 
teach mankind the doctrines of the gospel : and are 
infallible in their teaching. Were all this true, it 
would certainly be a sufficient reason for uniting 
with that church with all possible haste. But so 
far from the truth are your assumptions, that I be- 
lieve — and with good reason — that their opposites 
are rather true. And you are hardly as charitable 
toward us Protestants as are some of your modern 
theologians, who suppose that the sincere ignorance 
of a few of us may turn the scales in our favor. 
You should have told us what constitutes a true 
Apostolical Church, and then given the most satis- 
factory and incontrovertible reasons for considering 
the Roman Church as entitled to a claim so exclu- 
sive and important; which you have not done, un- 
less a few notes played upon the old succession harp 
be intended as the proof of your Apostolicity. Sup- 
posing it to be true — which indeed 1 have never 
seen proved — that your church can trace back an 
unbroken succession of legitimate bishops who have 
governed the church of Rome, what has this to do 
with unchurching and damning all those churches 
that do not acknowledge her claim to universal do- 
minion ? Do you not know that, after the ascension 
of our Saviour, in the days of the Apostles, numer- 
ous churches were founded by those holy men in 
various places in Europe, Asia, and Africa, which, 
in regard to ecclesiastical authority, were in nowise 
inferior to that founded at Rome? And do you not 
know that several centuries elapsed before the union 



SEVERAL TOPICS BRIEFLY NOTICED. 6 

of most of them under one system of government 
now denominated the "Romish hierarchy?" Do 
you suppose the conditions of human salvation were 
changed by this consolidation of power? If not, 
why may we not now have churches independent of 
the Roman as well as during the first six centuries? 
I will not stop to discuss this question here, only 
adding : I invite you to prove that I am required, 
on pain of eternal damnation, to submit to any par- 
ticular form of church government prescribed in the 
Holy Scriptures. And this you ought to do before 
proceeding deliberately to consign to the regions of 
hopeless misery all who do not acknowledge your 
claims. 

No more can my salvation depend upon a con- 
tinued succession of priests and bishops duly or- 
dained by those already in office. 

Suppose, my brother, a ship stopping at an island 
of the ocean inhabited by heathen, and a pious sailor 
should chance to impart to them some of the great 
truths of the Bible; they become interested and 
wish him to remain and instruct them farther in 
the gospel way ; he assents., and multitudes believe 
on the Son of G-od, would such be in a salvable 
state ; and should they die without a priest would 
they be saved according to this declaration : " For 
God so loved the world that he gave his only begot- 
ten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not 
perish but have everlasting life." (John, iii: 16.) 
If so, then salvation is possible without the pale of 
your succession. I value the Christian ministry 
perhaps as highly as yourself, and believe it to be 
of divine appointment, and necessary to the com- 
plete success of the gospel in the world, as the offi- 
cers of an army are to instruct, direct and govern 
those under their supervision. But when you make 
the eternal salvation of my soul depend upon the 
regular ordination and office of bishops and priests, 



4 ON THE EUCHARIST. 

you give them an undue importance in the economy 
of divine grace, and make them the lords over God's 
heritage by making their interposition essentially 
necessary to the impartation of heavenly grace. 
The salvation of my soul is a matter to be deter- 
mined between myself and my Maker; and if he 
saves me from sin and death, I am safe, though all 
earth and hell unite for my destruction. For 
"when a man's ways please the Lord, he maketh even 
his enemies to be at peace with him.'' (Prov. xvi : 7.) 
"And who is he that will harm you, if ye be fol- 
lowers of that which is good?" (1 Peter, iii: 13.) 
" Go ye, therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing 
them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, 
and of the Holy Ghost ; teaching them to observe 
all things whatsoever I have commanded you: 
and lo, I am with you always, even unto the end 
of the world." (Matt, xxviii: 19, 20.) This con- 
stitutes the commission of Christ to his ministers. 
They are not, therefore, our saviours, but the teach- 
ers of the Saviour's gospel. What essential differ- 
ence, whether I learn this gospel from their oral 
instructions or from the written word, provided I 
understand and obey it ? "For by grace are ye saved, 
through faith ; and that not of yourselves : it is the 
gift of God." (Ephes. ii: 8.) I conclude, there- 
fore, that a man may be saved without being a 
member of any regularly organized body of Chris- 
tians, or ever having been taught, by an ordained 
minister, the way of salvation; admitting at the 
same time the necessity of a duly authenticated 
ministry for the most successful propagation of the 
gospel, and the duty of all who have it in their 
power to sustain such ministry, and unite them- 
selves Avith a Christian church : not because such a 
union is absolutely essential to individual salvation, 
but because it conduces to personal good,, and the 
welfare of the church. Is it not even so? Where, 



SEVERAL TOPICS BRIEFLY NOTICED. 5 

then, is your authority for confining the Divine 
mercy to this succession of Romish prelates ? Such 
a limitation of the blessings procured by the atone- 
ment of Christ, is altogether opposed to the spirit 
and letter of God's Word. Forbid us not, there- 
fore, an entrance into the Kingdom of grace and 
of glory because we follow not with you; for "of a 
truth I perceive that God is no respecter of per- 
sons ; but in every nation, he that feareth him and 
worketh righteousness, is accepted with him." 
(Acts, x: 34, 35.) 

2. You appear to me also to err when you repre- 
sent religion and faith as consisting essentially in 
doctrine. The necessary consequence of this is, 
that all who do not receive this doctrine are desti- 
tute of saving faith, or true religion, than which 
nothing can be more dangerously false. St. Paul 
defines faith to be : " The substance of things hoped 
for, the evidence of things not seen." (Heb. xi: 1.) 
You say : " It is to believe, receive, and practice all 
that Jesus Christ has revealed, both great and 
small." Again this same Apostle says: "With 
the heart man believeth unto righteousness." 
(Rom. x: 10.) Your faith will doubtless lead to a 
Pharisaical righteousness, a simple reception and 
observance of the externals of Christianity, the let- 
ter of the gospel. St. Paul goes farther than this, 
and makes evangelical faith depend upon the exer- 
cise of the heart, or moral affections. His faith em- 
braces the things " hoped for" and "not seen," yours, 
the things possessed and seen, to wit, the revealed 
word, and, by consequence, not "hoped for." You 
make it necessary for a man to " believe, receive, and 
practice all that Jesus Christ has revealed : " but 
what will be the final condition of those who may 
have heard only a part of what is revealed ? Your 
definition makes it necessary for a man first to be 
come thoroughly acquainted with all God's revela- 
1* 



b ON THE EUCHARIST. 

tion before he can exercise saving faith ! Would 
not this exclude from salvation the mass of your 
own church, who, by being denied the free use of 
the Bible in their vernacular tongue, remain in ig- 
norance of much of it till death ? Happy for them, 
and others ignorant, that your definition is not an 
inspired one. 

You will doubtless agree with me that the prom- 
ise, "Lo, I am with you always, even unto the 
end of the world," applies only to those who teach 
"whatsoever" Christ "has commanded;" and if 
they teach things not "commanded," or contrary 
to the injunctions of God's Word, they have no 
claim to the promise, and are not true successors of 
the Apostles. For the succession of men in office 
without the succession of faith and doctrine scarcely 
deserves the name of succession. 

3. Again: Why was not the doctrine of transub- 
stantiation authorized by the church before the 
fourth Lateran Council, held A. D. 1215 ? After a 
considerable examination, I can find nothing of this 
doctrine, as now taught amongst you, for some six 
or seven centuries after Christ. On the contrary, 
the Fathers of those ages speak of the eucharistic 
elements as the figure of Christ's broken body and 
shed blood. 

Now, if these elements are not really and truly 
the flesh and blood of Jesus Christ, comprehending 
his soul and divinity, according to your standards, 
are you not guilty of the dreadful sin of idolatry 
whenever you bow before the elevated wafer and 
worship it ? 

Dr. Milner's solution of this important and sol- 
emn question I consider a mere evasion. If the 
doctrine of transubstantiation be not true, he would 
excuse his church on the ground that they believe 
what they worship to be God. But may we not be 
as charitable toward those Israelites who worshiped 



SEVERAL TOPICS BRIEFLY NOTICED. 7 

the golden calf? Do not the heathen also wor- 
ship what they believe to be the Supreme Being in 
the universe? Wherein, then, are they idola- 
ters more than the worshipers of the sacrament? 
" Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God, and Him 
only shalt thou serve," is the language approved by 
our Divine Kedeemer. Now suppose the bread of 
the eucharist to become by consecration, the real 
and true body of Christ according to your literal 
interpretation of the words of institution, this is 
my body. Are you quite certain that the divine 
nature of our Lord is so associated with that newly 
created body and dwelling in it as to render it a 
proper object of supreme worship ? You may say, 
that reason teaches that, on the principle of con- 
comitance, wherever the body of Christ is, there also 
must be his divine substance. True, but what has 
reason to do with this dogma which, at every turn, 
contradicts all reason and sense, and transcends all 
human comprehension ? If, contrary to the general 
laws of material bodies, the flesh of Jesus Christ 
can be in more places than one at the same time ; 
if ten thousand individual and separate bodies can, 
at the same moment, be one and the same body ; if 
a part of a thing can be equal to the whole, and 
the whole no greater than each of a thousand parts, 
when a separation is made, who can affirm any 
thing of its mode of existence ? 

If the presence of Christ's material and human 
flesh cannot be determined by reason and sense ac- 
cording to the usual mode of determining the pre- 
sence or absence of things material, how shall the 
presence or absence of the divine essence be ascer- 
tained by reason ? I mean such a presence as to 
authorize especial and local worship, supposing it 
to be right thus to contemplate the Deity. 

It is vain to introduce our reason to ascertain an 
extraordinary presence of Christ's divinity, whose 



8 ON THE EUCHARIST. 

mode of existence infinitely transcends all human 
conception, and then set aside that reason— when 
we come to investigate what more properly belongs 
to it. 

There being nothing revealed in the Holy Scrip- 
tures in regard to an especial presence of Christ's 
divinity in the eucharistic elements, we cannot from 
any exercise of our reason be more certain of such 
presence than, from the exercise of that same reason, 
we are of the absence of his natural flesh in this sacra- 
ment. If, therefore, we Protestants cannot, by an 
exercise of the reasoning faculty, certainly know 
that Christ's natural flesh is absent from the euchar- 
ist, much less can you certainly know that his 
divine substance is there present in a manner extra- 
ordinary. But if his divine substance is not thus 
present, then you incur the guilt of idolatry by wor- 
shiping the creature but not the Creator. How 
are you involved in doubtful uncertainty? If you 
employ your reason in order to ascertain the divine 
presence which is all the guide you have here, then 
you must use the same reason when you investi- 
gate the natural presence. But this faculty denies 
the natural presence with a thousand times more 
certainty than it affirms such a divine presence. 
So that whether you exercise your reason or not, 
you run the fearful risk of idolatry: for when you 
exercise this faculty, it tells you that Christ's natu- 
ral flesh is not present in this sacrament; and if 
his flesh is not present, then his especial and divine 
presence is not there by concomitance. But if j^ou 
reject reason altogether then you know nothing of 
the divine presence. And thus it is that "you 
worship you know not what." 

Brother, I beseech you to review this whole mat- 
ter in the light of God's Word and an enlightened 
reason, and see whether you can reconcile your mul- 
tiplicity of Divinities under the form of wafers with 



SEVERAL TOPICS BRIEFLY NOTICED. 9 

the One Only God of the Bihle. I say, an en- 
lightened reason ; for I believe the Bible to be ad- 
dressed to our reason ; and if it cannot by any just 
interpretation be reconciled with it, we may be 
allowed to entertain a doubt of its divine origin ; 
for we may venture to affirm, that a wise and be- 
nevolent God would never require rational man to 
believe a revelation of facts contrary to his enlight- 
ened reason. 

4. I perceive that you have also embraced the 
the doctrine of the infallibility of the church, be- 
cause you find it " grounded on the infallible prom- 
ises of God recorded in Holy Writ." For the same 
reason do I believe the church of God to be infal- 
lible ; that is, never failing to exist, and never fail- 
ing to hold and teach the essential doctrines of 
Christianity. Such a people has ever been upon 
earth since the day of Pentecost, and such a people 
will continue to inhabit this globe till Christ " shall 
come to be glorified in his saints, and to be admired 
in all them that believe." (2 Thess. i: 10.) This 
is the only infallibility that I can find "recorded in 
Holy Writ." Thus Christ said to his disciples: 
" Go ye, therefore, and teach all nations .... teach- 
ing them to observe all things whatsoever I have 
commanded you; and lo, I am with you always, 
even unto the end of the world." (Matt, xxviii: 
19, 20.) "Hesaith unto them, But whom say ye 
that I am? And Simon Peter answered and said, 
Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God. 
And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed 
art thou Simon Bar-jona ; for flesh and blood hath 
not revealed it unto thee, but my father who is in 
heaven. And I say also unto thee, That thou art 
Peter; and upon this rock I will build my church ; 
and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it." 
(Matt, xvi: 15-18.) "But the Comforter, the Holy 
Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he 



10 ON THE EUCHARIST. 

shall teach you all things, and bring all things to 
your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto 
you." (John, xiv: 26.) "Howbeit when he, the 
Spirit of Truth, is come, he will guide you into 
all truth .... and he will show you things to come." 
(John, xvi: 13.) Here our Lord enjoins upon his 
disciples to teach all nations all his commands with 
the annexed promise, that in so doing he will be with 
them all days even to the end of time. It is with 
them, and them only, that Christ continually abides, 
who receive and teach all things whatsoever he has 
enjoined ; and against such the gates of hell shall 
never prevail, neither shall any pluck them out of 
his hands. For our Lord and Saviour declared to 
Peter : upon this rock — this confession of thine of 
my Messiahship, which indeed did not originate 
with thee, a feeble mortal, but was xevealed to thee 
as a celestial idea from my father in heaven — I will 
build my church, and the gates of hell shall not pre- 
vail against it. This is one of those things to be 
taught, in order to enjoy Christ's presence, that we 
are built upon this rock, the Son of God ; " For 
other foundation can no man lay than that is laid, 
which is Jesus Christ, " (1 Cor. iii: 11,) not St, Peter, 
as you would fain have us believe, unless by a me ton- 
only we put Peter for the doctrine which he taught. 
Thus the Apostle Paul says: We "are built upon 
the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus 
Christ himself being the chief corner-stone." (Eph. 
ii: 20.) In this sense only can we be said to be 
built upon Peter, together with the other apostles 
and those ancient and holy prophets, who spoke as 
they were moved by the Holy Ghost, and said: 
" The stone which the builders refused is become 
the head of the corner ; " (Psal. cxviii: 22.) And, 
"Behold I lay in Zion for a foundation a stone, a 
tried stone, a precious corner-stone, a sure founda- 
tion." (Isa. xxxviii: 16.) This stone which God 



SEVERAL TOPICS BRIEFLY NOTICED. 11 

has laid "in Zion for a foundation" is no other 
than Christ " The Lord of hosts himself/' (Isa. viii : 
13,) who is a sanctuary for his people and a rock of 
offence to his enemies that reject him. 

The two passages cited from the gospel accord- 
ing to St. John were addressed to the Apostles and 
intended to apply to them particularly as divinely 
inspired, as it is evident from the expressions : 
"Bring all things to your remembrance whatso- 
ever I have said unto you/' and "Show you things 
to come." The former can apply only to those to 
whom Christ spoke whilst upon earth, and the lat- 
ter to those only who should be endowed with a pro- 
phetic spirit. But confessedly there is no one now 
living upon earth who conversed with Christ more 
than eighteen hundred years ago, or can justly 
claim the power to foretell future events ; therefore 
these promises apply to none now living in their 
most enlarged sense, and cannot be used to prove 
an infallibility in teaching in the church, unless it 
can also be shown that those in whom such infalli- 
bility resides have the power of foretelling future 
events, and of calling to remembrance all things 
whatsoever Christ said unto his disciples whilst upon 
earth with them ; both which are impossible. I 
conclude, therefore, that such an infallibility as 
you vainly profess is not to be proved from the re- 
cords of Holy Writ, and has not existed in the 
world since the decease of the Apostles^ who, for 
the establishing of the infant church, were endowed 
with the supernatural gifts of speaking divers 
tongues, working miracles, foretelling future events, 
and declaring infallibly what was according to the 
will of Grod, so that what they bound or forbid on 
earth was bound in heaven, and what they loosed 
or permitted on earth was also loosed in heaven. 
But you profess to work miracles and infallibly to 
bind and loose, why not speak in divers tongues 



12 ON THE EUCHARIST. 

and prophesy? It is remarkable that you should 
inherit a part of the supernatural gifts bestowed 
upon the Apostles, but not the whole. Let your 
Apostolical successors sj3eak with tongues and fore- 
tell coming events, and then we will believe that 
they can work miracles and bind and loose, but never 
before. Your professed infallibility differs subject- 
ively very much from that of the Apostles. They 
were individually inspired and infallible, but yours 
is a kind of collective infallibility, dependent for its 
operation upon certain conditions necessary to con- 
stitute an oecumenical council ; as if the Holy Spirit 
cannot now operate as formerly upon individual 
mind and soul. 

Your infallibility then requires a combination of 
human wisdom and judgment, otherwise it confess- 
edly has no existence ; but the infallible teaching 
of the Bible has come to us through individual 
mind, and our inward persuasion of its divine origin 
depends upon personal obedience and holiness. "If 
any man will do his will, he shall know of the doc- 
trine, whether it be of God." (John, vii: 17.) "He 
that is of God heareth God's words." (John, viii: 
47.) "And the sheep follow him ; for they know 
his voice." (John, x : 4.) " And I give unto them 
eternal life ; and they shall never perish, neither 
shall any man pluck them out of my hand." 
(John, x: 28.) ^But ye have an unction from 
the Holy One, and ye know all things." (I Epist. 
John, ii: 20.) 

We must then do his will if we wish to arrive at 
a knowledge of his doctrine ; we must follow him 
if we will escape death and receive the gift of eter- 
nal life ; we must have an unction from the Holy 
One if we will know all things necessary to be un- 
derstood in order to be saved infallibly in heaven. 
And there is no difference whether he be Patist or 
Protestant; for it is written, If any man will do 



SEVERAL TOPICS BRIEFLY NOTICED. 13 

his will he shall know of the doctrine whether it 
he of God ; he shall have the Spirit himself bear- 
ing witness with his spirit that he is a child of 
God, if a child, then an heir of God, and joint heir 
with Christ. 

This divine assurance that we are right is infi- 
nitely better than all the canons of all the councils 
ever held in Christendom : and without it all your 
pretensions to infallibility are but a sounding brass 
and a tinkling cymbal. But with it, be assured 
that you are infallibly saved from all fatal error, 
and thus continuing, will be finally and infallibly 
saved in heaven. 

If these views be just and scriptural, then you 
have fallen into several very grave errors when dis- 
cussing the infallibility of the church. 

1. You apply the promises made to the Apostles 
only, in their full sense, to the whole church of God 
in all succeeding ages. 

2. You call the Church of Eome the catholic or 
universal church which only is infallible in her 
teaching. 

3. And then you confine the exercise of this pre- 
rogative to a definite circle of bishops convened 
after a certain manner, in a certain place, at a cer- 
tain time, and for a certain purpose. 

But your theory of church infallibility is over- 
thrown by matter of fact. 

The Council of Nice, held A. D. 325, and that of 
Ephesus, held A. D. 431, decreed with an anathema 
"That no new article forever shall be added to the 
creed or faith of Nice." But the Council of Trent, 
in A. D. 1545, added twelve new articles to this 
creed, and anathematized all who will not embrace 
them. The Council of Laodicea, held during the 
fourth century, determined on the canon of Scrip- 
ture now received by Protestants. The council of 
Trent added to this canon the books of the Apocry- 
2 



14 



ON THE EUCHARIST. 



pha. 1 Not less contradictory has been the legisla- 
tion of councils respecting image worship, a sketch 
only of which can I now give, which, for the sake 
of convenience may be arranged tabularly. It was : 



CONDEMNED. 

By Council of Elvi- 
ra, held between 300 & 400 

By Council of Con^ 

stantinople, held A. D., 754 

By Council, Frank- 
fort, assembled by 
Charlemagne, - - A. D., 794 

By Council at Con- 
stant inople, as- 
sembled by Leo, A. D.,814 

By Council at Par- 
is, assembled by 
Louis, the Meek, A. D.,824 



ORDAINED. 

By the Second 

Council of Isice, A. D., 787 

By a Council at 
Con stantinople, 
convened by The- 
odora during the 
minority of li e r 
son, - - - - A. D., 842 

By another Coun- 
cil, held at Con- 
stantinople, - A. D., 879, 
the decision of the Second 
Council of Nice Avas c o n - 
firmed and renewed. 2 



Such contradictory legislation quite destroys your 
pretensions to infallibility. But I must notice your 
mode of argumentation whereby you arrive at results 
so convincing and satisfactory to your own mind. 

In your letter of "Reasons" and "Motives" you 
say, p. 10: "Thus you perceive that my belief of 
the Church's infallibility, is grounded on the infal- 
lible promises of God, recorded in Holy Writ." 
And again, p. 18, you say: "It is evident, that the 
rule of faith left by the Saviour to the world, is the 
Word of God, whether written or unwritten* as in- 
terpreted by that infallible authority established 
by Him, viz: the Church, that is, the Apostles and 
the lawful successors of the Apostles in all ages, to 
the consummation of the world." After this you 
undertake to point out the "dreadful and tremend- 
ous results " of the Protestant rule of faith em- 



i See Elliot on Romanism, vol. 1. 

2 See Faber's Difficulties of Romanism, note, pp. 41-44. 



SEVERAL TOPICS BRIEFLY NOTICED. 15 

bracing the principle of private interpretation ; and 
having attributed the great evils of Protestantism, 
and the "bold and alarming strides" which infi- 
delity is making "through our beloved country ;" to 
this principle, you add, p. 22, "I might thus trace 
and pursue this principle through a thousand other 
consequences equally alarming, but what I have ad- 
vanced will suffice to show its natural, awful and 
horrid tendencies. " From this language of yours 
two things are obvious. 

First, that the doctrine of the infallibility of the 
Church is founded upon Scripture testimony. 

Second, that the Scriptures are not to be inter- 
preted by private and fallible judgment, but viz : 
"by that infallible authority established by God, 
the Church." 

Now let me ask: In what manner could you, a 
private individual and fallible mortal, ascertain the 
meaning of those "infallible promises recorded in 
Holy Writ," except in the exercise of that very 
principle of private interpretation which you con- 
demn and denounce? In other words, how could 
you ascertain from the written word of God that 
the church is infallible, except by your private and 
fallible reasoning? I answer, in no possible man- 
ner. 

For you will observe that, at your starting point, 
you are required to prove that the Holy Scriptures 
teach the fact that such an infallible authority has 
been established, in order to be perpetuated "in all 
ages to the consummation of the world." And you 
cannot here assume that infallible authority to prove 
its own existence. You must prove this before you 
can introduce it into your argument as a thing 
known, unless it be a fact so self-evident that like 
axioms in science, it is incapable of being made 
more plain by any demonstration. But this is not 
the case, as all men know, and as you confess ; for 



16 ON THE EUCHARIST. 

you say that it a is grounded on the infallible 
promises of God recorded in Holy Writ," and there- 
fore, not upon itself as a self-evident verity. You 
have therefore, in denouncing the principle of 
private interpretation of Scripture,, written out 
the sentence of your own condemnation, brought 
down your own boasted rule of faith to a level with 
that of Protestants, and sapped the very founda- 
tion of your pretended prerogatives. 

For if what you know of the existence of such a 
divine attribute depends primarily upon the exercise 
of your private and fallible judgment, you cannot 
be made more certain of its existence than I am of 
its non-existence. The above reasoning holds good 
if you cast the proof of the Church's infallibility 
upon herself: for she cannot assume to be an in- 
fallible interpreter of Holy Scripture until she de- 
monstrates her infallible authority from the Scrip- 
ture. 

Thus it is that the knowledge of your infallibility 
rests upon your private and fallible interpretation 
of the Holy Scriptures. 

By the very necessity of the case, are you driven 
back and compelled to adopt the very principle 
which you regarded as having given rise to the 
" dreadful and tremendous results " of Protestant- 
ism. 

How do you know that, by adopting this same 
"principle" you have not, in this case at least, run 
into "results " equally " dreadful and tremendous ? " 
And in view of your liability to err, how dare you sit 
in judgment upon the present religious condition 
and eternal destiny of millions of your fellow-beings, 
who may be quite as competent to judge of the truth 
as yourself. "Therefore thou art inexcusable, O 
man, whosoever thou art that judgest: for wherein 
thou judgest another, thou condemnest thyself ; for 
thou that judgest doest the same things. But we 



SEVERAL TOPICS BRIEFLY NOTICED. 17 

are sure that the judgment of God is according to 
truth agaixst them that commit such things. And 
thinkest thou this, man, that judgest them that 
do such things and doest the same, that thou shall 
escape the judgment of God ? " Nay, verily: "For 
with what judgment ye judge ye shall be judged." 
Cease then I entreat you to render yourself a can- 
didate for the Divine displeasure, by your simple 
attempts to unchurch and consign to perdition all 
who do not adopt your symbol of faith, and consent 
to your private interpretation of Holy Scripture. 
That for having thus done, you may find repent- 
ance unto life, is the sincere prayer of 

Your Brother, 

E. 0. P. 



2* 



LETTER II. 

TRANSUBSTANTIATION STATED AND THE DISCUSSION OF 
THE SIXTH CHAPTER OF JOHN INTRODUCED. 

Dear Brother: — Your communication has been 
been duly received, and I perceive by its contents, 
that of the several doctrines of your church briefly • 
noticed by me, you have chosen to enter upon the 
defence of your favorite dogma of t ran substantia- 
tion. This you introduce in the following language : 
You ask " why was not the doctrine of transub- 
stantiation authorized by the Church before the 
fourth Lateran Council, 1215." It was believed by 
the Church from the beginning: that is, the mean- 
ing and thing signified by the word, viz., the "Real 
Presence." The term, I grant, was not used be- 
fore — the dogmas of the Catholic Church are fixed — 
there is no being on earth capable of making a new 
article of faith. If there is a new term introduced, 
it is in order to define more clearly the belief of 
the church on that point. You further say: "that 
you can find nothing of this doctrine as now 
taught for the first six or seven centuries ; but, on 
the contrary, the fathers of those ages speak of the 
eucharistic elements as the figure of Christ's broken 
body and shed blood." This I deny in toto ; and 
it is conclusive to my mind that you have never in- 
vestigated the subject, or you never could have 
arrived at such results : results so diametrically op- 
posed to all history. To this you presently add : 
" Our divine Redeemer has said : " " unless you 
eat my flesh and drink my blood, you shall not 
have life in you." — I trust in God that I shall be 
18 



TRANS INSTANTIATION STATED. 19 

able to present to your mind such an amount of 
testimony of the truth of this dogma, that you will 
he obliged to confess, that it is the part of enlight- 
ened wisdom to admit that it was taught, believed, 
and practised by the Apostles themselves, and in 
every subsequent age, and consequently, that my 
views on this point are not singular, but in union 
with all Christendom in every age — and that I am 
more rational in believing it, than to reject it. — 
Christ our Lord instituted this sacrament when at 
his last supper "He took bread, blessed and broke, 
and gave to his disciples, saying, take, eat, for this \ 
is my body, which shall be [is] broken for you. 
In like manner he took the cup, blessed^ and gave 
it to them saying: drink ye all of this, &c. &c. 
Again: "The bread which I will give is my flesh 
for the life of the world." St Paul says : " Whosoever 
shall eat this bread or drink the chalice of the Lord 
unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and blood of 
the Lord. For he that eateth and drinketh un- 
worthily, eateth and drinketh judgment to him- 
self, not discerning the body of the Lord. " This 
comprises all your Scripture defence of the doc- 
trine in question, from which you pass immediately 
to the ancient fathers. 

Having denied in toto the correctness of my state- 
ment, that the fathers speak of the Eucharistic ele- 
ments as the figure of Christ's broken body and 
shed blood, you have devolved upon me the task of 
verifying my assertion, which I hope to do in its 
proper place. 

It will be necessary however first to consider the 
Scripture doctrine of the Sacrament of the Eucharist 
in order to show the inapplicability of the passages 
cited by you, to your purpose ; and to render the 
reasons for my saying that "I can find nothing of 
this doctrine as now taught amongst you for some 
six or seven centuries after Christ. " 



20 ON THE EUCHARIST. 

For it is an undoubted fact, that the Scriptures 
of the New Testament contain the earliest record of 
the institution and doctrine of this Christian Sa- 
crament ; so that they constitute the starting point 
whether inquiries partake of the historical or theolo- 
gical. Nay, whatsoever is clearly demonstrated to 
be contained in the revealed Word of God must be 
acknowledged as decisive ; and the evidence gathered 
from other sources can be regarded only as auxiliary 
to the discovery of its divine, truth and confirmatory 
of the correctness of our deductions. 

2. For what reason I know not, you appear to me 
as if you wish to change the point at issue when you 
say, that "the meaning and thing signified by the 
word" transubstantiation is the "Real Presence. " 
The doctrine of transubstantiation does, indeed, 
necessarily embrace that of the Eeal Presence ; but 
the doctrine of the Real Presence does not thus neces- 
sarily comprehend that of transubstantiation. G-od 
may,by his spirit and power, be really and effectively 
present in a thing without operating any substan- 
tial change in that thing. "If a man love me," 
says Christ, " he will keep my words : and my Father 
will love him, and we will come unto him, and make 
our abode with him." (John xiv: 23; compare 
Rom. viii: 22, and I Ep. John iv: 13, 15, 16.) So 
we may infer a Real Presence in that ancient inner 
Sanctuary into which the high priest alone entered 
once every year, not without blood, which he offered 
for himself, and for the errors of the people. ( Heb. 
ix: 7.) But no one supposes hence a transubstan- 
tiation, either of man or the ancient Sanctum Sanc- 
torum. 

We may then admit a Real and sanctifying 
Presence of the Holy Spirit in the consecrated 
Eucharist, without subscribing to a transubstantia- 
tion of the elements of bread and wine. It would 
not, however, be an easy task to prove from Scrip- 



TRANSUBSTANTIATION STATED. 21 

ture any change whatever, except that of circum- 
stance, in the consecrated elements; so that a con- 
siderable latitude of opinion may be allowed in a 
matter concerning which Holy Scriptures are silent. 
For who can tell whether, in virtue of consecration, 
any change at all is effected in the thing thus set 
apart for sacred purposes, and if any, what is its 
precise nature and extent? It is true that ancients 
did pray for the descent of the Holy Spirit upon the 
elements bread and wine, set apart for religious 
use ; and they doubtless believed that the sanctify- 
ing spirit of God did descend, and so enter them as 
to constitute a Keal and effectual Presence. I do 
not deny that some Protestants hold to such a pres- 
ence of the sanctify in g power of God in the Eucharist; 
but they do utterly renounce, as the leading heresy 
of your Church, the doctrine of transubstantiation ; 
by which is meant not simply a Keal Presence as 
above considered, but the change of the substance of 
the bread and wine, in virtue of the words : Hie 
corpus meum est, &c, into that real and substantial 
body and blood of our Lord Jesus Christ, who was 
born of the Virgin Mary, suffered under Pontius 
Pilate, rose again, and ascended into heaven, to be 
seated at the right hand of his Father, where he 
ever liveth to make intercession for us. Nay, your 
church teaches that Christ entire is contained in 
each species, and in every particle of the same when 
a separation is made, by reason of that natural 
concomitance which is supposed ever to subsist be- 
tween his human and divine nature. 

The Council of Trent, at its thirteenth session, 
holds the following language touching this dogma: 

Canon I. "If any one shall deny that in the 
sacrament of the most holy Eucharist, there are 
truly, really and substantially contained the body 
and blood, together with the soul and divinity of 
our Lord Jesus Christ, and therefore whole Christ ; 



22 ON THE EUCHARIST. 

but shall say that he is in it only as in a sign or 
figure, or by his power ; let him be accursed." 

Canon II. " If any one shall say that in the most 
holy sacrament of the Eucharist the substance of the 
bread and wine remains together with the body and 
blood of our Lord Jesus Christ, and shall deny that 
wonderful and singular conversion of the whole 
substance of the bread into his body, and the whole 
substance of the wine into his blood, the species 
[appearances] of bread and wine only remaining ; 
which conversion the Catholic Church does indeed 
most fitly call Transubstantiation ; let him be 
accursed." 

Canon III. "If any one shall deny that, in the 
venerable sacrament of the Eucharist, whole Christ 
is contained under each species, and under every 
part of each species when a separation is made ; let 
him be accursed." * 

It is this affirmed "wonderful and singular con- 
version of the whole substance of the bread into the 
body, and the whole substance of the wine into the 
blood" of our Lord Jesus Christ that Protestants 
deny ; and it is this feature of the doctrine especially 

1 Can. I. Si quis negaverit in sanctissimse eucharistiae Sa- 
cramento contineri vere, realiter, et substantialiter, corpus et 
sanguinem una cum anima et divinitate Domini nostri Jesu 
Christi, acproinde totum Christum; sed dixerit tantummodo 
esse in eo ut in signo, vel figura, aut virtute; anathema sit. 

Can. II. Si quis dixerit in sacrosancto eucharistiaB Sacra- 
mento remanere substantiam panis et vini una cum corpore et 
sanguine Domini nostri Jesu Christi, negaveritque mirabilem 
illam et singularem conversionem totius substantia? panis in 
corpus, et totius substantia vini in sanguinem, manentibus 
dumtaxat speciebus panis et vini: quam quidem conversio- 
nem catholica ecclesia arjtissinie Transubstantionem appellat; 
anathema sit. 

Can. III. Si quis negaverit in venerabile sacramento eucha- 
ristise, sub unaquaque specie, et sub singulis cujusque speciei 
partibus, separatione facta, totum Christum contineri; anath- 



DISCUSSION OF JOHN VI. 23 

that constitutes the true point now at issue 
between us. 

II. You quote the language used by our Saviour 
in that very ' remarkable discourse of his in the 
synagogue of Capernaum, in which he affirmed the 
necessity of eating his flesh and drinking his blood ; 
and also that employed by him at the institution 
of this holy sacrament ; and it might be supposed 
from your quoting these words of the Saviour with- 
out any remark, that you consider their literal ac- 
ceptation so perfectly self-evident as to need neither 
qualification nor comment, 

However well satisfied you may be in regard to 
receiving Christ's words on both these occasions in 
a literal sense, it is a well known fact that a very 
respectable portion of Christendom understand these 
words as spoken figuratively ; and I will add that 
you would know, if rightly informed, that this sen&e 
has been attached to these words ever since they 
were uttered by our Lord and Saviour. 

1. In his discourses to the Jews, it was usual 
with our divine Teacher to avail himself of well 
known practices and current modes of expression, 
in order to make himself understood, and give 
greater force to the truths delivered. And some- 
times he seized upon recent or passing events, and 
employed the very words of the addressed to convey 
some grand doctrine of Christianity, giving to such 
language a sense more elevated and spiritual than 
what had just before been given it by his hearers. 
Somewhat such is the character of that discourse 
which he addressed to the Jews at Capernaum, 
recorded in the sixth chapter of St. John's Gospel; 
and it is therefore exceedingly important to keep 
in mind the particular circumstances that gave oc- 
casion to it, in order to ascertain its import and 
true meaning. 



24 ON THE EUCHARIST. 

Having witnessed the miraculous cures wrought 
by Jesus upon them that were diseased, a multitude 
of five thousand men, besides women and children, 
assembled in a retired place near Bethsaida, and 
when the evening drew nigh the disciples advise 
their Master to dismiss the people and permit them 
to go into the villages and procure for themselves 
food ; but he embraces the opportunity to perforin 
one of the most extraordinary miracles that he ever 
wrought. From five loaves of barley bread and the 
flesh of two small fishes he feeds this large multi- 
tude of people, who, in consequence of this, said: 
" This is of a truth that Prophet that should come 
into the world ; " and in their selfish and sensual 
worldliness they would fain have taken him and 
made him their King; but he dismisses them and 
retires to pray in a place of solitude. At even-tide 
his disciples embark in their vessel, in order 
probably to pass along the lake to some selected 
point from which, taking Jesus, they designed to 
cross over to Capernaum, which was situated on the 
western shore ; but an unexpected storm of wind 
drove them far into the lake where Jesus appeared 
to them at the fourth watch of the night walking 
upon the water. Being received into the ship the 
sea became calm, and they soon reached their place 
of destination. 

On the day following the excited multitude, not 
finding Jesus, and knowing that he did not embark 
with the disciples, and having seen no other vessel 
except that occupied by them, procure othor boats 
and cross over to Capernaum in search of him who 
had so miraculously supplied them with food the 
previous day. Having found him, they exclaimed 
in apparent wonder : Babbi, when earnest tlwu hither t 
Discerning their real character, he accuses them of 
unworthy and selfish motives, and exhorts them to 
seek earnestly the spiritual and everlasting food 



DISCUSSION OF JOHN VI. 25 

which could be imparted only by himself, whose 
authority had been attested and approved by God. 
" Verilj r j verily, I say unto you, ye seek me, not 
because ye saw the miracles, but because ye did eat 
of the loaves and were filled. Labor not for the 
meat which perisheth, but for that, meat which 
endureth unto everlasting life, which the Son of 
Man will give unto you ; for him hath God the 
Father sealed;" (verses 26,, 27.) 

The figure selected by our Lord whereby to con- 
vey his exhortation, is evidently taken from the 
food which had been miraculously supplied to the 
multitude the preceding day. This agrees with his 
practice on other occasions, a striking illustration 
of which we have in his conversation with the Sa- 
maritan woman at Jacob's well, whom he asked for 
a drink, and to whom he immediately after recom- 
mends the blessings of the Spirit under the figure 
of living or running water. (John iv: 10.) On 
another occasion he relieved a blind and dumb 
demoniac, and afterwards illustrates the deplorable 
condition of the Jews under the idea of an evil 
spirit taking his seven companions, and returning 
with redoubled fury to the residence from which he 
had been expelled. (Matt, xii.) 

This usage of our Lord, in improving recent or 
passing events to supply himself with figures appro- 
priate for the impressive delivery of some important 
truth, deserves particular attention, as it may throw 
much light on some parts of this discourse. When 
his hearers, in evident allusion to his words, in- 
quire : " What shall we do that we may work the 
works of God ? " he immediately replies : " This is 
the work of God, that ye believe on him whom he 
hath sent,'' (verses 28, 29.) No work is more im- 
portant for you to do, and none more acceptable to 
God than right faith in him whom my Father hath 
sent. This is the true principle and germ of all 
3 



26 ON THE EUCHARIST. 

other works, that you assent to the evidence set 
before you, acknowledge and embrace me as your 
divine Messiah," sent by God to be the Saviour of a 
lost world. This is the introductory proposition 
laid down by Christ in this important discourse, 
first expressed in figurative language under the 
idea of working for imperishable food, and afterward 
stated in literal terms in reply to the proposed in- 
terrogation. And this leading idea of the discourse, 
this fundamental truth of Christianity, is con- 
tinually kept before the mind and repeated again 
and again, with the same change of expression. 
Thus, he promises blessings to the believer when 
he says of him in a figure: " He that cometh to me 
shall never hunger; 77 and acids, in proper terms: 
"He that believeth on me shall never thirst," (verse 
35.) A little after using the same figure, he says 
of the believer: "Him that cometh to me I will in 
no wise cast out, 77 (v. 37 ;) and again, literally, he 
says: "Every one that seeth the Son and believeth 
on him may have everlasting life," (v. 40.) And 
yet again, in reply to their murmurings,, he affirms 
the necessity of the Father's influence to produce 
this faith, and adds with the same figure: "No 
man can come to me, except the father who hath 
sent me draw him ; and I will raise him up at the 
last day," (v. 44;) and, "every man therefore that 
hath heard, and hath learned of the Father, cometh 
unto me," (v. 45.) Then once more, without a 
figure, he promises to such the full blessings of the 
Gospel: " Verily, verily, I say unto you, he that 
believeth on me hath everlasting life," (v. 47.) True 
faith in Christ then is the main principle advanced 
in this divine discourse ; and it is urged as the 
sine qua non 



of a glorious resurrection and life ever- 



b 



lasting. 

2. How do his carnal hearers receive this spiritual 
and sublime doctrine of our blessed Redeemer ? Do 



DISCUSSION OF JOHN VI. 27 

they show themselves prepared to give glory to God 
for the wisdom which they have heard, and to 
acknowledge that he who spoke to them and wrought 
such a notable miracle in feeding them, was indeed 
the Christ? On the contrary, although they had 
hut the day before witnessed one of the most aston- 
ishing miracles ever wrought for the confirmation 
of the truth, they disregard it and demand another, 
that they might see and believe, (v. 30.) Such a 
miraculous supply of their wants as they had ex- 
perienced for one day did not suffice to convince 
them of his unlimited power and goodness as the 
expected Messiah. They doubtless supposed that 
he would give them a continual supply of temporal 
delicacies, such as was afforded to their ancestors 
by the manna. This is rendered highly probable 
from the following : " Many affirm, says Bab. Maye- 
mon, that the hope of Israel is this, That the 
Messiah shall come and raise the dead; and they 
shall be gathered together in the garden of Eden, 
and shall eat and drink and satiate themselves all 
the days of the world. There the houses shall be 
all builded with precious stones; the beds shall be 
made of silk, and the rivers shall flow with wine 
and spicy oil. He made manna to descend for them, 
in which was all manner of tastes; and every 
Israelite found in it what his palate was chiefly 
pleased with. If he desired fat in it, he had it. In 
it, the young man tasted bread, the old man honey, 
and the children oil. So shall it be in the ivorld to 
come, (i. e. the days of the Messiah.) He shall give 
Israel peace, and they shall sit down in the garden 
of Eden, and all nations shall behold their condi- 
tion ; as it is said, My servants shall eat, but ye shall 
be hungry, &c, Isa. Ixv: 13." * In the days of the 
Messiah they expected to enjoy a life of ease and 

* Lightfoot, as cited by Clarke, in Comment on the place. 



28 ON THE EUCHARIST. 

luxury, to lie on beds of silk, to recline and eat in 
houses of precious stone. So that when our Lord, 
in allusion to the ancient manna, says : " The 
bread of God is he that corneth down from heaven, 
and giveth life unto the w T orld," (v. 33,) they ex- 
claim : " Lord, evermore give us this bread," (v. 34.) 
And when Jesus explains his language and tells 
them that he is the bread of life which came down 
from heaven, they murmur and inquire, "Is not 
this the son of Joseph, whose father and mother 
we know?" (v. 42.) 

Such being the character of those to whom this 
discourse was addressed, we cannot fail to see the 
propriety of the repeated and varied instruction 
made use of by our Lord in order to disengage their 
minds from those carnal thoughts which they had 
learned to associate with the Messiah, and lead 
them to contemplate and understand the spiritual 
design of his mission, and the heavenly character 
of his doctrine. 

Having premised thus much concerning the cir- 
cumstances which gave occasion to this discourse, 
the usage of our Lord in conducting his addresses, 
the main principle here advanced, and the character 
of his auditors, let us with a little more particularity 
notice it throughout. 

3. Our divine Kedeemer, perceiving the sensual 
and unworthy motives of those Jews that followed 
him, opens his discourse to them with a severe re- 
buke. " Verily, verily, I say unto you, ye seek me, 
not because ye saw the miracles, but because ye did 
eat of the loaves, and were filled," (v. 26.) You 
have crossed the Tiberian sea, having witnessed the 
miracles wrought in proof of my Messiahship, not 
so much because you are interested in being re- 
deemed from your sins and filled with spiritual 
grace, as you are in elevating me to distinction as 
a king to deliver you from temporal evil, and ad- 



DISCUSSION OF JOHN VI. 29 

minister to the gratification of your animal appe- 
tites. For this purpose I have not appeared in the 
world ; I exhort you therefore to "labor not for the 
meat which perisheth, but for that meat which en- 
dureth unto everlasting life, which the Son of man 
will give you; for hiin hath God the Father sealed," 
(v. 27.) They inquire: "What shall we do that 
we may work the works of God?" (v. 28.) Jesus 
immediately answered: "This is the work of God, 
that you believe on him whom he hath sent," (v. 29.) 
No work is so important, none so acceptable to God 
as right faith in him whom he has sent into the 
world, bearing the impress of his own seal, and 
duly accredited by incontestable miracles. Under- 
standing him to speak of himself, they ask : " What 
sign showest thou then, that we may see, and 
believe thee ? What dost thou work ? Our fathers 
did eat manna in the. desert; as it is written, He 
gave them bread from heaven to eat," (verses 30, 31.) 
"Thou hast fed five thousand men with five loaves 
and two small fishes, we acknowledge; but what is 
this in comparison of what Moses did in the desert, 
who for forty years fed more than a million persons 
with heavenly bread; do something like this, and 
we will believe on thee, as we have believed 
Moses." ' 

To this unreasonable demand, our Lord replies 
that it was not Moses, but God, who gave the 
manna, that he now offers them the true bread of 
heaven, the manna being only a material symbol 
of the spiritual reality, which is intended, not like 
that ancient food, to contribute to the sustenance 
of a few in the present life, but to afford eternal life 
to the whole world. Having no internal character 
adapted to the perception of his meaning, and dwell- 
ing upon the carnal idea of corporeal food to be 

1 Clarke Com. in loco. 
3* 



30 ON THE EUCHARIST. 

continually imparted by their Messiah, by which 
the present life should be sustained without toil, 
they exclaim, " Lord, evermore give us this bread," 

He immediately corrects their error, declaring 
himself to be the bread of life just spoken of, and 
promises an exemption from spiritual want to the 
believer. He then, as at the beginning of his dis- 
course, rebukes them for a want of faith in him, 
although they had been eye-witnesses of his mira- 
cles, which were sufficient to convince them of his 
Messiahship, provided their hearts were rightly 
disposed to appreciate his character and receive his 
doctrines. " But I said unto you, that ye also have 
seen me, and believe not/' (v. 36.) In the verse 
following he teaches an important truth, namely, 
that those who receive his doctrine and believe in 
him are influenced so to do by his Father, which 
plainly intimates that their want of disposition to 
come to Christ and receive him as their Messiah 
arose from an unwillingness to be drawn by the 
gracious influences of the Spirit, they having re- 
sisted his drawings by passion, prejudice and 
worldly ambition. Now he assumes the preroga- 
tives of the divine Messiah, and affirms that he will 
in no wise reject him who, through the influence of 
the Father, believes in him, but will raise him up 
at the last day according to the will of God, for the 
accomplishment of which he "came down from 
heaven," (verses 37-40.) Truths glorious and sub- 
lime — a Saviour engaging to "cast out" none 
that yield to the influence of the Father and 
believe on him; but promising to accord to such 
everlasting life, and a happy resurrection. At the 
announcement of these great consoling truths of 
Christianity, did they shout for joy and welcome 
the messenger? No. "The Jews then murmured 
at him, because he said, I am the bread which came 



DISCUSSION OF JOHN VI. 31 

down from heaven, And they said, Is not this 
Jesus, the son of Joseph, whose father and mother 
we know? How is it then that he saith, I came 
down from heaven ? " (verses 41, 42.) What slow- 
ness of heart to believe. No wonder that Jesus, 
after checking their murmurings, insists on the 
necessity of the Father's gracious influence in order 
to the exercise of saving faith in their divine Be- 
deemer. 

The Father must draw and teach by his Spirit ; 
and he that will be saved, must hear his instruc- 
tions, and, with the docility of a diligent pupil, 
learn his will, accept the offered salvation, be justi- 
fied by faith, and nourished continually by the 
bread of life in order to escape death, to be raised 
up at the last day, and to be made a partaker of 
eternal life, (verses 44-46.) All this is evidently to 
be understood by our Saviour's instruction to the 
unbelieving Jews. 

The divine instructor now resumes the primary 
and leading topic of his discourse, which he intro- 
duces with the strong declaration, " Verily, verily, 
I say unto you, he that believeth on me hath ever- 
lasting life," (v. 47.) The proper object of your 
faith is he who being in the bosom of the Father, 
having seen him, and been sent by him from heaven 
with full authority and power to give eternal life 
to them that believe in him. He is the food that 
imparts and sustains this spiritual and everlasting 
life. However extraordinary was that manna which 
your fathers ate in the desert, it was incapable of 
sustaining even their animal life, whereas the anti- 
type of that earthly food which has no association 
with this world but comes down from its own native 
heaven, is able to give and preserve a life which is 
beyond the reach of death. I who address you am 
that life-giving and unfailing food "which came 
down from heaven," (verses 47-51.) 



32 ON THE EUCHARIST. 

Both Protestants and Komanists agree in inter- 
preting the former part of this discourse of believing 
in Christ. But the latter contend that, at the forty- 
eighth or fifty-first verse, " a perfect transition is 
made from believing in him to a real eating of his 
body and drinking of his blood in the sacrament 
of the Eucharist," while "the generality of Protes- 
tants maintain that no such transition takes place." 1 

Do you ask, why I have discussed that part of 
this discourse, upon whose doctrine both parties are 
agreed? I answer: In order to point out the cir- 
cumstances which occasioned the " sacred lecture," 
the leading topic of the discourse, our Lord's method 
of instruction, and the character of his hearers ; a 
just knowledge of all which will greatly help to a 
proper understanding of what is contained in the 
sequel. It is hardly necessary here to remind you 
that the leading topic of discourse is faith in 
Christ inculcated to faithless Jews. 

Yours truly, 

E. 0. P. 

i Wiseman on the Real Presence, Section 1, p. 50. 



LETTER III. 

DISCUSSION OF JOHN VI CONTINUED. 

Dear Brother: — You are doubtless aware that if 
a transition in the discourse of our Lord could be 
proved, either from the structure, phraseology, or 
scope and evident intention of the language used 
by the speaker, it would not necessarily follow that 
a manducation of the real flesh, and a drinking of 
the real blood of our Lord in the Eucharist was 
intended. For, although the strong and very ex- 
pressive language — " eat the flesh of the Son of 
man and drink his blood" — should be interpreted 
as relating to the Eucharist, it might be understood 
of an internal and spiritual feeding upon him by 
faith in the use of the mystic symbols of his body 
and blood. There are, however, several difficulties 
in explaining the latter part of our Lord's discourse 
as referring to the Eucharist in either sense. 

The word used here is flesh, while body is always 
employed elsewhere in the New Testament, as in 
the words of institution as recorded by the Evan- 
gelists and quoted by St. Paul. Had the divine 
speaker intended in this discourse a particular ref- 
erence to the eucharistic body, it is but reasonable 
to suppose that he would have employed the same 
word here as he subsequently did at the institution 
of this sacrament. It is true the thought, were it 
intended, might have been expressed by either 
term, and therefore the use of the word flesh might 
have been rather circumstantial than otherwise ; 
still however we must feel that if the Eucharist 



34 ON THE EUCHARIST. 

had been intended the sense would have been clearer 
if the word body had been used as elsewhere. 

2. In verse 51, Christ says : " and the bread that I 
will give is my flesh, which I will give for the life of 
the world." This cannot be interpreted of the Eu- 
charist, for his flesh cr body was not then given when 
this sacrament was instituted; for the inspired 
writers plainly declare that the offering of the body 
of Christ was made once for all by his death upon 
the cross. (See Heb. vii: 27; ix: 25-28; x: 10, 
12, 14; 1 Pet. ii: 24.) If therefore Christ's body 
has been given but once as a sacrifice for sin when 
he made a voluntary offering of himself upon the 
cross, it is certain that verse 51 cannot be explained 
of the Eucharist, but must be interpreted of the 
gift which he made of himself at his death. And 
this exposition agrees with the use of the word in 
other places. Thus, it is said, "The Son of man 
came to give his life a ransom for many," — "he 
gave himself a ransom for all," — " who gave himself 
for our sins," — "who gave himself." (Matt, xx: 
28; Mark, x: 45; 1 Tim. ii: 6; Col. i: 4; Tit. ii: 
14.) This meaning of the term accords with gen- 
eral usage and harmonizes with the context. If 
then the language of verse 51 must be explained 
of something different from the bread of the Eucha- 
rist, it follows that we must also understand the 
eating and drinking of Christ's flesh and blood 
afterward mentioned as relating also to something 
different, for the connection is so intimate that we 
are compelled to admit that both must be under- 
stood of the same topic. 

3. If this discourse of our Lord be explained of the 
Eucharist, it is not easy to account for the fact that 
the writer of this gospel has elsewhere made no 
mention of the institution of this sacrament. Indeed 
it is wholly improbable, and seems quite unnatural, 
that St. John should give the relation he has done of 



DISCUSSION OF JOHN VI. 3d 

this discourse of Christ, if he understood it as spoken 
of the Eucharist, without taking any notice of its 
institution. And especially is this consideration 
strengthened when we reflect that the eating and 
drinking urged in this chapter is represented as 
absolutely necessary in order to obtain Christian 
privileges and receive spiritual and everlasting life. 
And, on the other hand., if this part of our Lord's 
discourse was understood by the other Evangelists 
as referring primarily to the Eucharist, it is remark- 
able that they should have given no account of it. 
So naturally would the institution have suggested 
the discourse, that it is difficult, on this theory, to 
assign any good reason for its omission. 

4. Another difficulty, and closely connected with 
that just noticed, arises from the fact that the Eu- 
charist was not yet instituted. The general tenor 
of our Lord's discourse plainly shows that when he 
urges the duty and necessity of eating his flesh and 
drinking his blood, he means that those very per- 
sons addressed should, without delay, do the thin 
enjoined. From the remarks made in a former 
communication (Letter II) it is evident that the 
whole discourse preserves a proper unity of subject. 
The words, "this is that bread which came down 
from heaven ; not as your fathers did eat manna, 
and are dead: he that eateth of this bread shall 
live forever," verse 58, naturally refer us back to 
verses 50 and 51 : " This is the bread which cometh 
down from heaven, that a man may eat thereof and 
not die. I am the living bread which came down 
from heaven;" and again to verses 31-33: "Our 
fathers did eat manna in the desert ; as it is writ- 
ten, He gave them bread from heaven to eat. Then 
Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto 
you, Moses gave you not that bread from heaven ; 
but my Father giveth you the true bread from 
heaven. For the bread of God is he who cometh 



o 



36 ON THE EUCHARIST. 

down from heaven and giveth life unto the world." 
It being evident, therefore, that an indissoluble 
connection exists between these several parts of the 
discourse, it is clear that our Lord does not, in his 
most emphatic and solemn manner, here insist 
upon the necessity, in order to secure union with 
him here and eternal life in heaven, of observing 
an institution and obeying a command which were 
not to be promulgated until a full year after, but is 
urging an immediate observance of the command 
with which he introduces the discourse: "Labor 
for the meat which endureth unto everlasting life," 
(v. 27,) which he afterwards explains of believing on 
him whom God hath sent, (v. 29.) 

To this argument of ours that the Eucharist was 
not yet instituted, Dr. Wiseman replies in the 
language of Dean Sherlock, that "our Saviour said 
a great many things to the Jews in his sermons, 
which neither they nor his disciples could under- 
stand when they were spoken, though his disciples 
understood them after he was risen," (p. 138.) Dr. 
Wiseman instances, as an example of similar con- 
duct in our Lord, his conversation with Nicodemus 
which, he affirms, "took place before baptism was 
instituted, and yet the necessity of it is there de- 
clared." He continues, "Now, no one has ever yet 
thought of denying that the regeneration there 
mentioned referred to baptism, on the ground that 
this sacrament had not yet been instituted/' (p. 
140.) 

He assumes here what he could not prove, namely, 
that the baptism of Christ was not instituted at the 
time of this interview with Nicodemus. For it is 
in the highest degree probable that the baptism of 
Christ was in use before the conversation with 
Nicodemus. The first direct mention that is made 
of our Lord's baptizing is, indeed, in the verse that 
follows the account of this interview ; but the ap- 



DISCUSSION OF JOHN VI. 37 

parently incidental manner in which the practice is 
introduced, makes it extremely probable that he 
had already sanctioned the rite by using it in the 
introduction of his followers to discipleship. "After 
these things came Jesus and his disciples into the 
land of Judea ; and there he tarried with them and 
baptized/' (John, iii: 22.) "Behold the same bap- 
tizeth, and all men come to him," (v. 26.) And, 
" When therefore the Lord knew how the Pharisees 
had heard that Jesus made and baptized more dis- 
ciples than John, (though Jesus himself baptized 
not, but his disciples,)" (iv: 1, 2.) These passages 
show the usage of this rite immediately or shortly 
after the interview with the Jewish ruler; and 
there can be no reasonable doubt that those dis- 
ciples who had before witnessed his miraculous 
power and believed on Mm, (ii: 11,) made the same 
public profession of their faith as did they who 
became his disciples after the interview ; in other 
words, that they received his baptism. When 
therefore Dr. Wiseman asserts that the discourse 
of our Lord to the Jews, recorded in the sixth 
chapter of St. John, "stands in the same relation 
to the institution of the Eucharist, as the conference 
with Nicodemus does to the institution of baptism," 
(p. 140,) he makes a statement which is entirely 
gratuitous, and without the shadow of a proof. 1 

Besides, Nicoclemus must have been familiar with 
the rite of baptism, as it had, for a long time, been 
practiced among the Jews ; " and for the very same 
end," says Lightfoot, "as it now obtains among 
Christians, namely, that by it proselytes might be 
admitted into the church ; and hence it was called 
baptism for proselytism." 

"All the Jews assert, as it were with one mouth, 
that all the nation of Israel were brought into 



1 Turner's Essay on our Lord's Discourse, p. 69. 
4 



38 ON THE EUCHARIST. 

covenant, among other things, by baptism. Israel 
(said Maimonides, the great interpreter of the Jewish 
law) was admitted into the covenant by three things, 
namely, by circumcision, baptism, and sacrifice. 
Circumcision was in Egypt, as it is said, ' None un- 
circumcised shall eat of the passover.' Baptism was 
in the wilderness, before the giving of the law, as 
it is said, 'Thou shalt sanctify them to-day and 
to-morrow, and let them wash their garments.' 
' Whensoever any heathen will betake himself, and 
be joined to the covenant of Israel, and place him- 
self under the wings of the Divine Majesty, and 
take the yoke of the law upon him, voluntary cir- 
cumcision, baptism, and oblation are required ; but 
if it be a woman, baptism and oblation.' " Mai- 
monides, Issure Biah, c. 13. 1 

Should all this, however, be questioned, still it is 
a matter of fact that John, as the forerunner of the 
Messiah, had been publicly baptizing, and that 
crowds had flocked to him from Judea and Jerusa- 
lem. The use of water, therefore, in admitting to 
discipleship must necessarily have been known to 
Nicodemus, and he might readily have applied the 
well known fact as explanatory of our Lord's lan- 
guage of being born of water. Dr. Wiseman is 
therefore exceedingly unfortunate when he selects 
this allusion to baptism as an example illustrative 
of the affirmed incomprehensible language of the 
latter portion of the discourse at Capernaum. The 
answer of Nicodemus, How can these things he? was 
doubtless made with reference to the spiritual re- 
generation — the heavenly tilings. — spoken of. 

5. The consequences of partaking or not partak- 
ing the divine food as stated by our Lord, do not 
harmonize with the interpretation which refers thin 
passage principally or wholly to the Eucharist, 

1 See Lightfoot's Horse Hebraica?, in Matt, iii and xxviii. 



DISCUSSION OF JOHN VI. 39 

" If any man eat of this bread, lie shall live forever," 
(v. 51.) "Whoso eateth my flesh, and drinketh 
my blood, hath eternal life ; and I will raise him 
up at the last day/' (v. 54.) "Verily, verily, I say 
unto you, except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, 
and drink his blood, ye have no life in you," (v. 53.) 
Even admitting that, although this is said abso- 
lutely, yet right disposition and other conditions 
requisite to what is called sacramental feeding are 
implied; nevertheless, such great and glorious 
promises on the one hand, and so solemn a warn- 
ing and formidable results on the other, are never 
set forth in the New Testament as the direct conse- 
quences of observing or neglecting any one outward 
institution. Certainly this is so in regard to the 
sacrament of baptism. We do not read, "He that 
is baptized shall be saved," but, "he that believetli 
and is baptized," while we do read, "he that 
believetli not shall be damned," and "whosoever 
shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved." 
And it is particularly worthy of notice, that when 
baptism is represented as cleansing, purifying, and 
saving, there is usually added some explanatory 
word or phrase, guarding us against attaching such 
effects to this sacrament however rightly performed. 
Thus, when Ananias requires Saul to "arise and 
be baptized and wash away his sins," he adds, 
" calling on the name of the Lord," (Acts, xxii : 16,) 
which teaches the necessity of prayer in connection 
with outward profession. And when St. Paul 
speaks of Christ as "having purified his church by 
the washing of water," he adds, "through the 
word," (Ephes. v: 26,) implying the efficacy of the 
truth in producing the result. St. Peter also, when 
he speaks of " baptism saving us," is careful to in- 
troduce the caveat, " not the putting away the filth 
of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience 
towards God," and adds, "by the resurrection of 



40 ON THE EUCHARIST. 

Jesus Christ." (I Peter, iii : 21.) Here inward 
purity is presumed to exist with the external act, 
and Christ's resurrection is represented to he the 
procuring cause of the blessing. 

At the institution of this eucharistic sacrament, 
our Saviour did indeed command its observance as 
a memorial of himself, but he did not then attach 
to an obedience of this injunction simply, the re- 
wards of everlasting life and a resurrection, from 
the dead ; nor did he threaten a want of this life 
to those, who should never commemorate the sa- 
crificial death of their Saviour God. Did the apos- 
tolic church believe that they ate the very flesh and 
drank the very blood of Christ in the Eucharist, it 
is difficult to conceive how the Corinthian Chris- 
tians, at so early a period, could have made so 
strange a use of it as to connect it with an ordinary 
meal after the Jewish manner of celebrating the 
passover. And it is equally difficult in this view 
of the doctrine, to account for St. Paul's moderation 
in rebuking them for thus abusing this sacrament. 
(See I Cor. xi : 17, et seq.) Instead of quoting the 
strong language of our Saviour to the Jews at Ca- 
pernaum, and reminding them of the great and 
precious rewards promised to those who rightly and 
worthily partake of the flesh and blood of Christ, 
he goes on to cite the language of institution, and 
reminds them that it is to be celebrated in remem- 
brance of their crucified Lord, in order to show 
forth his death till he come. It is highly probable 
from the language of St. Paul, that these Corin- 
thians did celebrate the Eucharist rather as a kind of 
historical commemoration of the death of Christ 
than they did as a memorial of his sacrificial death ; 
and thus it was, that they ate the bread and drank 
the cup of the Lord in a sense inferior and unwor- 
thy, not discerning the Lord's body as sacrificed for 
the sins of a guilty world. By not keeping in view 



DISCUSSION OF JOHN VI. 41 

the sacrificial death of Christ in the observance of 
the Eucharist, they lowered, so to speak, the death 
of Christ and virtually represented him rather as 
dying a malefactor than a spotless and atoning vic- 
tim : for there is no medium between the two. And 
thus, so far as their disorderly and perverted use of 
the sacrament was concerned, they were like the re- 
jecting enemies of Christ, guilty of his body and 
blood, and ate and drank judgment to themselves ; 
not damnation, for the Apostle goes on to say in sub- 
stance, that if we would pass judgment upon our 
own disorderly conduct and humbly repent we 
should not be judged; but when we are judged we 
are chastened of the Lord for our good, that we 
should not be condemned with the world. There 
is therefore nothing in the whole passage that 
answers to the promise of everlasting life and a glo- 
rious resurrection, as the reward of observing the 
Saviour's command to eat his flesh and drink his 
blood; and nothing, that threatens a want of this 
life, to those that do not partake of these sacred 
emblems. If ever a suitable occasion was offered 
to set forth the exceedingly great rewards conse- 
quent upon a right observance of this holy sacra- 
ment, and thunder into the ears of heretical com- 
municants the terrors of God's threatening against 
such as observe it not, or altogether pervert it, it 
was in the days of the Apostle Paul ; and could 
the inspired Apostle have drawn his argument from 
our Lord's discourse at Capernaum, doubtless he 
would have so done, and struck alarm to the hearts 
and consciences of the schismatic and heretical 
Corinthians. I conclude, therefore, from the fore- 
going, that such exceeding great and precious, and 
life-giving promises as are contained in our Lord's 
discourse, are not annexed to sacramental feeding, 
however rightly done, this not being in harmony 

with the usage of the New Testament Scriptures. 
4* 



42 ON THE EUCHARIST. 

6. The circumstances which accompanied the de- 
livery of this discourse of our Saviour, do not appear 
to "be the most suitable for proposing the doctrine 
of a Christian sacrament. It seems quite unnatural 
that our Lord should propound, more than a year 
before its institution, the doctrine of the Eucharist. 

We may venture to affirm, that in the annals of 
this world, there cannot be found a judicious, wise 
and benevolent legislator enforcing obedience to a 
law not yet enacted, or the observance of an insti- 
tution not yet established, by the highest possible 
sanctions, remunerative and penal. Nor has such 
been the method employed by God with his rational 
and accountable creatures. We cannot, therefore, 
reasonably suppose that our blessed Redeemer 
would act contrary to all known precedent, both 
human and divine ; nay, contrary to what seems to 
us ordinary wisdom, common prudence, and just 
conduct. 

Nor, to my mind, was his audience the most suit- 
able for the delivery of the doctrine of the principal 
and peculiar sacrament of a new dispensation, Of 
their unbelieving, sensual, and worldly character, 
enough has already been said. With our present evi- 
dence therefore, it is difficult to believe that our Lord 
would select the presence of such an assembly to 
announce, in terms the most unusual, the doctrine 
of the Eucharist. Dr. Wiseman therefore makes a 
most gratuitous assumption, when he says : " It will 
be acknowledged at once, that if our Saviour ever in- 
tended to propound the doctrine of the Real Presence, 
a more appropriate and favorable opportunity never 
occurred, in the course of his entire ministry, than 
the one exhibited in the sixth chapter of St. John," 
(Page 49.) 

II. If the words in question cannot be referred 
primarily to the Eucharist, you may ask, " What 
then is their meaning ? " 



DISCUSSION OF JOHN VI. 43 

To this I rejjly in the language of another: 1 
" The same as had already been conveyed by the 
phrases before employed ; namely, the duty and 
rewards of a living faith in the Kecleemer, with the 
fuller and more distinct development, however, than 
had been before made of the atoning sacrifice which 
was to be effected by his death, and the necessity of 
this faith acting on it, in order to secure the pardon 
of sin, the mystical union of the believer with his 
Lord, and, by consequence, his attainment of present 
spiritual life, of future resurrection, and of eternal 
happiness. The exercise of such a faith is what is 
meant by ' eating the flesh and drinking the blood 
of the Son of Man,' by whatever means of grace it 
may act, whether they were in existence and opera- 
tion at the time when the discourse was uttered, 
or were subsequently developed or established. 

u This view of our Lord's meaning is drawn from 
the occasion and whole tenor of the discourse as 
already presented. He begins by urging faith ; he 
replies to the querulous objections of his opponents 
by inculcating faith; he proceeds by repeatedly 
stating the necessity of the Father's influence to 
produce faith ; and, after he has finished his dis- 
course, and corrected the gross error of some of his 
hearers, he introduces the same fundamental prin- 
ciple of faith, as effected by the Father's influence. 
'There are some of you that believe not; for Jesus 
knew from the beginning who they were that 
believed not; and he said, therefore said I unto you, 
that no man can come unto me, except it were given 
him of my Father,' (verses 64, 65.) And, more- 
over, to the question, 'Will ye also go away?' 
the honest, the truly 'ardent and enthusiastic' 
Peter responds in his Master's own strain, "We 
believe and are sure that thou art the Christ, the 

i Turner's Essay on John vi, etseq. To this Author the 
writer is indebted for much contained in the Scripture dis- 
cussion of this question. 



44 ON THE EUCHARIST. 

Son of the living God/ (v. 69.) The verbal diffi- 
culties which can set aside such an interpretation, 
sustained by the facts that gave occasion to the dis- 
course, by its whole train and tenor, and by the 
leading idea pervading the mind of both teacher 
and disciple after it had been delivered, ought to 
be not only weighty, but overwhelming/' 

" It is granted that the expressions are unusually 
strong, and that the figure is developed with extra- 
ordinary boldness. At the same time, it is con- 
tended that it is the same sort of figure as had all 
along been employed, and to which the occasion 
gave rise. The words embodying the one thought 
are varied; and this, as has already been said, 
because our Lord adopts the very terms of his op- 
ponents, and because the general figure having 
been already repeatedly employed, these terms are 
an amplification well fitted to express the closeness 
of the union intended. The increased strength and 
boldness of the terms will appear natural to all 
who patiently attend to the circumstances. They 
are in analogy with other scriptural representa- 
tions, of which I shall adduce a single instance. 
St. Paul, delineating the inward working of the 
natural mind, when reason is acting on the subject 
of religious obligation,, and the conscience is in 
some measure alive to a regard to it, while, at the 
same time, the grace of the Gospel is wanting, uses 
the language, I consent unto the law that it is good. 
This simply expresses acquiescence in its excellence. 
But afterward, becoming more warmed with the 
subject, and desiring to state as fully as possible 
the completeness of this acquiescence of reason and 
conscience, he employs a stronger term, sune'domai, 
l I delight in,' or, ' am pleased with' the law of God, 
after the inner man." (Kom. vii: 16, 22.) The ex- 
pressions, " eat the flesh and drink the blood of the 
Son of Man," when considered in relation to the 



DISCISSION OF JOHN VI. 45 

language "eat me," are similar to the latter word 
of St. Paul in relation to the former. In each case, 
both expressions designate the same thing, the 
one being only more fervid and energetic than the 
other. 

" It is hardly necessary to remark, that words de- 
noting food and beverage, and freely partaken 
thereof, have in all ages and nations been employed 
to signify an ardent attention to learning, a recep- 
tion of doctrine, particularly when it engages the 
whole mind and interests the affections. This is 
admitted by all. The reason of the figure is evi- 
dent. As the food is taken into the system, com- 
bines with the substance, nourishes and strengthens 
it and thus becomes a natural cause of its continued 
vitality; so does the learning or the doctrine em- 
braced influence the intellectual or moral character 
of the recipient. Hence he is commonly said to 
imbibe its excellence, to taste and enjoy its sweet- 
ness, to devour the truth with greediness, or to 
swallow error with avidity. Perhaps no people 
were more accustomed to an extreme use of this 
figure than the Hebrews. It occurs very often in 
the New Testament, and abounds in the Old. i If 
any man hear my voice, I will sup with him and 
he with me. (Rev. iii : 20.) I have fed you with milk, 
and not with meat. (1 Cor. iii: 2.) I have eaten my 
honey-comb with my honey ; I have drunk my wine 
with my milk; eat, friends, drink, yea, drink 
abundantly, beloved, [or, be drunken ivitli love. 
Margin.] (Sol. Song, v: 1.) The Lord of hosts shall 
make unto all people a feast of fat things, a feast of 
wines on the lees ; of fat things full of marrow, of 
wines on the lees well refined.' (Isa. xxv: 6.) The 
same class of expressions is used to convey the idea 
of enjoying and delighting in any thing. Thus, for 
instance, 'Thy words were found and I did eat 
them, and thy word was unto me the joy and re- 



46 ON THE EUCHARIST. 

joicing of my heart' (Jer. xv: 16.) Also for a 
hearty reception in contradistinction to an unwill- 
ingness to see and admit the truth: 'Thou, son 
of man, hear what I say unto thee : Be not thou 
rebellious like that rebellious house ; open thy 
mouth and eat that I give thee. Eat that thou 
findest, eat this roll. So I opened my mouth, and 
he caused me to eat that roll ; and he said unto me, 
son of man, cause thy belly to eat, and Jill thy bowels 
with this roll that I give thee. Then did I eat it ; 
and it was in my mouth as honey for sweetness.'" 
(Ezek. ii : 8, and iii : 1-3.) In the Apocryphal writ- 
ings wisdom personified uses similar language: 
"They that eat me shall yet be hungry, and they 
that drink me shall yet be thirsty.'"' (Ecclus. 
xxiv: 21.) 

The same figure is employed by later Jewish 
writers. Thus the Eabbis say, that "every eating 
and drinking mentioned in the book of Ecclesiastes 
refers to the law and good works :' 51 and Maimon- 
ides employs similar language when he speaks of 
" filling the stomach with bread and meat/' while 
he means to express the idea of "knowing what is 
lawful or unlawful. ' 2 

In that collection of ancient Jewish law, tradi- 
tions and interpretations, called the Talmud, we 
find passages which more nearly resemble the lan- 
guage of our Saviour. The Talmudist in giving 
certain comments of the Eabbis on Jer. xxx: 6, 
among other things furnishes the following: "And 
what (means) all faces are turned into paleness? 
Eabbi Johanan says, the family which is above and 
the family which is below, &c. The Jewish com- 
ment, printed in the margin, explains, " the family 

i This is a quotation from the Midrash Koheleth. 
2 Jar! Hazakah. Grounds of the Law, chap. \N,adjinem- fol. 
7, vol. i, Amsterdam edition. 



DISCUSSION OF JOHN VI. 47 

which is above and the family which is below," of 
" the angels and Israel." The Talmudist proceeds 
as follows: "Rab says Israel are about to eat the 
years of the Messiah. Says Rabbi Joseph, true, but 
who eats of Mm f Do Hillek and Billek eat of him? 1 
in opposition to the words of Hillel, who said, there 
is no Messiah for Israel, for a long time ago they ate 
him, in the days of Hezekiah. Says Rab ; he did 
not create the world except for David ; and Samuel 
says for Moses ; and Rabbi Johanan says for Mes- 
siah. What is his name ? " Here follows the several 
answers given to this question, and a very prepos- 
terous application of several texts of Scripture to 
the Messiah, after which the writer remarks: 
"Rabbi Hillel says, not for them, for Israel is Mes- 
siah, for a long time ago they ate him in the days of 
Hezekiah." 

From the foregoing, it is evident, that the Jews 
were accustomed to the use of such figures of speech, 
used to express a reception of truth in the mind 
and heart; and it is quite reasonable to suppose, 
that they might have understood our Lord to speak 
figuratively, had they been candidly disposed to 
learn of him, especially as they had, in the former 
part of his address, repeatedly listened to this kind 
of metaphorical discourse. It was, doubtless, their 
ignorance of the spiritual design of the Saviour's 
misvsion, their unjust prejudice, and worldly expec- 
tations, which prevented them from properly under- 
standing him as teaching the sublime doctrine of 
faith in him as relating to the sacrificial death, or 
atoning sacrifice which he would make for the 
world; which death he had already symbolically 

1 Hillek and Billek are the names of certain judges in 
Sodom, according to Rabbi Solomon Jarcht, followed by 
Lightfoot. "Works, vol. ii, p. 554, fol. London, 1684. 
Buxtorf considers them as fictitious persons. — Lex. Talmud, 
p. 777. 



48 ON THE EUCHARIST. 

predicted by, "Destroy this temple, and in three 
days I will raise it up," (John, ii : 19,) and which 
was prefigured through a long catalogue of genera- 
tions by continued sacrifices. St. Augustine at- 
taches to the murmuring disciples the fault of their 
own unbelief. "If it be inquired of me wherefore 
they could not believe, I quickly reply, because 
they would not." 1 

2. It is doubtless true, that our Lord intended his 
remark to these as a solution of what he had before 
said: "Doth this offend you? If then ye shall see 
the Son of man ascend up where he was before ? It 
is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth 
nothing; the words that I have spoken unto you 
are spirit and are life." (Verses 61-63.) As if he 
had said : Does this afford an obstacle to your faith ? 
What will you think when you see me ascend to 
my Father and take with me this very flesh which 
you erroneously suppose you have been exhorted to 
eat? Will you not then see that you have wholly 
misapprehended the meaning of my language? Be 
assured, it is the spirit that gives life. This mate- 
rial flesh of mine would profit you nothing in the 
way of obtaining life eternal, even were it possible 
for you to eat it corporeally, my words were de- 
signed to teach, not a carnal, but a spiritual man- 
ducation, the exercise of -a firm faith in me as an 
atoning sacrifice for the sins of the world, That 
this is the meaning designed to be conveyed by 
his words, I have no doubt. And in order to show 
you that the same view was anciently taken of these 
explanatory words of our Saviour, I will adduce a 
testimony or two from the Fathers, though it be 
anticipating a little the line of argument which I 
intend in my next to follow. 

i Quare non poterimt credere, si a me quseratur, cito re- 
spondeo, quia nolebant. — Tract, liii in Joan. 



DISCUSSION OF JOHN VI. 49 

St. Augustine says: "'For it is the Spirit that 
quickeiieth, the flesh profiteth nothing.' But then, 
when the Lord commended this, he spake of his 
flesh, and said, ' Unless anyone eat my flesh, he 
shall not have eternal life in himself.' Some of his 
disciples, the seventy, for the most part, were of- 
fended, and said, 'This is a hard saying, who can 
understand it?' And they receded from him, and 
walked no more with him. It seemed to them 
hard that he said, ' Except any one eat my flesh he 
shall not have eternal life.' They understood. this 
foolishly; they thought of it carnally; and sup- 
posed that the Lord was about to cut off certain 
particles of his body and give them, and they said, 
'This is a hard saying.' They were hard, not the 
saying. For if they had not been so, but had been 
meek, they would have said to themselves: Not 
without cause has he said this, [not] unless there 
were some latent sacrament there. They should 
have remained with him tractable, not difficult, and 
they would have learned from him what, themselves 
departing, they that remained learned. For, when 
the twelve disciples remained with him, themselves 
receding, they appeared as if lamenting their death 
because they were offended at his word, and had 
receded. But he instructed them, and said. It is 
the Spirit that quickeneth, but the flesh profiteth 
nothing ; the words which I have spoken unto you 
are spirit and life. Spiritually understand what I 
have said ; you are not about to eat this body which 
you see; and drink that blood which they that cru- 
cify me are about to shed. I have commended 
unto you a certain sacrament; spiritually under- 
stood, it shall quicken you. Although it is neces- 
sary that this be celebrated visibly, nevertheless it 
must be understood invisibly." A 

A Enarrati6 in Psal. xcviii: § 9. 



50 ON THE EUCHARIST., 

From this language of St. Augustine, two things 
are obvious : 

1. He considered the Jews to have understood 
Christ literally and carnally. 

2. He condemns their carnal apprehension of 
his words as foolish. 

With this orthodox view of the matter, let us 
compare, or rather contrast, the language of Dr. 
Wiseman. "Were the Jews right, in so under- 
standing him, or were they wrong?" "If they 
were right, then so are the Catholics, who likewise 
take his words literally ; if wrong, then Protestants 
are right, when they understand him figuratively.' 7 
(Lecture iii, p. 102.) He having examined our 
Saviour's usual practice when his words were mis- 
apprehended, by being literally understood, as also 
when they were literally and rightly perceived, 
thus concludes: The objection of the Jews proves 
that they understood our Redeemer's words in their 
literal sense, of a real eating of his flesh ; his answer 
illustrated by his invariable practice, demonstrates 
that they were right in so understanding. We, 
therefore, who understand them as they did, are 
right also. (Idem, p. 111.) 

Dr. Wiseman may, if he please, enjoy all the 
honors of the society to which his literal and carnal 
interpretation entitles him, as for me, I prefer the 
sense which the learned Bishop of Hippo gives. 

St. Athanasius also says : " When our Lord con- 
versed on the eating of his body, and when he thence 
beheld many offended, he forthwith added : ' Doth 
this offend you? If then ye shall behold the Son of 
man ascending where he was before? It is the spirit 
that quickeneth: the flesh profiteth nothing. The 
words which I speak unto you are spirit and life/ 
Both these matters, the flesh and the spirit, he said 
respecting himself, and he distinguished the spirit 
from the flesh, that we might know those things 



DISCUSSION OP JOHN VI. 51 

which he spoke to he not carnal, hut spiritual. For, 
to how many persons would his hody suffice for 
food, even should it become aliment for the whole 
world? But that he might turn away their minds 
from carnal cogitations, and that they might learn 
that the flesh which he would give them, was hea- 
venly and spiritual food, he, on this account, men- 
tioned the ascent of the Son of man to heaven. e The 
words, said he, which I speak unto you are spirit 
and life!' As if he had intimated: My hody shall 
he given as food for the world ; hut then it must he 
imparted to each one only after a spiritual manner, 
that so it might be to all an earnest of the resurrec- 
tion to eternal life." B 

Those Fathers therefore understood Christ as 
explaining his language to his disciples, whereas 
Dr. W. contends that he only repeated it without 
explanation. 

With the regards of your brother, 

E. 0. P. 



B Athanas. Epist. ad Serapion., in illud, quicunque dixerit 
verbum, etc. Tom. ii, p. 710. Paris, 1698. 



LETTER IY. 

PATRISTIC VIEW OP OUR LORD'S DISCOURSE IN JOHN VI. 

Dear Brother: — The importance attached by 
modern writers in your church to the language of 
our Saviour in his discourse at Capernaum, will be 
a sufficient apology for the somewhat protracted 
discussion of this topic which we have already made. 
According to Dr. Wiseman's language, cited near 
the close of my last, I understand him to rest his 
doctrine of a carnal manducation of Christ's flesh 
upon the literal meaning of the passage in question : 
if it be right to interpret the words of our Lord lit- 
erally, then are Catholics right; but if it be right to 
interpret them figuratively, then are Protestants 
right. That we are right in the exposition which 
we give them is evident from the general scope and 
design of the whole discourse, Dr. W's learned sub- 
tleties to the contrary notwithstanding. In further 
proof of the correctness of our exposition, I now 
propose to consider the evidence drawn from the 
writings of distinguished authors, who have given 
us their views of the meaning of our Lord's dis- 
course, beginning with the ancient Fathers of the 
church and confining myself principally to those 
writers acknowledged by you as standard authors. 

You need not be reminded, that we look in vain 
for formal and critical interpretation of the Holy 
Scriptures in the writings of the first three centu- 
ries. The Fathers of those ages were interested in 
spreading a knowledge of the Gospel, and in culti- 
vating its practical influence on their own character ; 
and their expositions ol Scripture are to be sought 



PATRISTIC VIEW OP JOHN VI. 53 

in various treatises, on topics of philosophy and 
theology, in their epistolary writings, and works 
composed in opposition to existing errors, commen- 
tary, in the later sense of the word, being hardly 
known. Modern theologians of extensive patristic 
learning, differ in their views of the exposition, 
given by the ancient Fathers, of the discourse of 
our Lord recorded in the sixth chapter of St. John's 
Gospel; some contending that they interpret it 
directly of the Eucharist, while others maintain, 
that they only make an application of it to this 
sacrament. With the settlement of this difference 
of opinion I am not so much interested, as I am to 
show from the writings of antiquity, that the ancient 
church understood by the words of our Saviour, not 
a carnal, but a spiritual manducation of the flesh 
of Christ, that is,, a feeding upon him by an appro- 
priating faith in the efficacy of his sacrificial death. 

The worthy use of the Eucharist is, without doubt, 
one of the means whereby we are enabled to par- 
take of this heavenly food, and the ancients were 
therefore right, when they applied the general doc- 
trine in John vi, to the particular case of the 
Eucharist, considered as rightly and worthily re- 
ceived; because the spiritual feeding spoken of 
by our Lord, is the thing signified and performed 
in this sacrament. I submit the following quota- 
tions from the Fathers, with such remarks only, 
as seem needful to a proper understanding of 
them. 

1. Ignatius, having his approaching martyrdom 
in view, after speaking of his desire to depart, and 
of a living principle within him, "which says, come 
to the Father," says: "I take pleasure neither in 
the food of corruption, nor in the pleasures of this 
life ; I desire the bread of God, bread celestial, 
bread of life, which is the flesh of Jesus Christ, the 
Son of God, who was made of late of the seed of 
5* 



54 ON THE EUCHARIST. 

David and Abraham, and I desire for drink his 
blood, which is love incorruptible and eternal life. 
No longer do I wish to live according to man." A 

It is evident that Ignatius here alludes to our 
Lord's discourse at Capernaum; and from the cir- 
cumstances under which it was written, from the 
connection in which it was found, as well as from the 
language itself, it is obvious that this spiritually- 
minded bishop has in mind, not a participation of 
the Eucharist, but a spiritual and eternal enjoyment 
of Christ after his martyrdom. 

Were we, however, to allow this author to refer 
to the Eucharist, instead of proving a partaking of 
Christ's real blood, it plainly teaches the contrary, 
namely, a participation of "love incorruptible and 
life eternal." In like manner are we to understand 
by the expression, " The bread of God/' the heavenly 
and life-giving food procured by the sacrifice of our 
Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ. So that, allowing 
him to allude to the Eucharist, which is altogether 
improbable, his language is to be explained as re- 
ferring to a spiritual feeding upon Christ in the 
sacrament, but not to a participation of the corporeal 
flesh and blood of our Lord. 

2. There is a passage in Iken^eus, which may be 
thought to allude to the discourse recorded in the 
sixth chapter of St. John. He says that our Lord 
did not come to us, as he might have done, in his 
incorruptible glory, which we could not have borne ; 
but "the perfect bread of the Father supplied us 
with himself, as babes with milk, which was his 
advent according to man, that we, nourished, as it 
were, by the breast of his flesh, and accustomed by 
such lactation to eat and drink the Word of God, 
might be able to retain in ourselves the bread of 
immortality, which is the Spirit of the Father." 3 

A Epist. ad Romanos, cap. vii, p. 88. 
B Adv. Hseres, lib. iv r cap. 74. 



PATRISTIC VIEW OF JOHN VI. 55 

If this be an allusion to John vi, it is evident, that 
the author does not consider the discourse there re- 
corded, as relating directly to the Eucharist, for he 
is speaking of the incarnation of Christ, by which 
are effected the eating and drinking of which he 
speaks. Indeed his language plainly teaches that 
it is a spiritual union with Christ that is intended 
by the expression, "to eat and drink the Word of 
God." 

3. Tertullian, when proving that the words of 
our Lord, "The flesh profiteth nothing," do not 
militate against the doctrine of the resurrection, 
says: "Although he says that the flesh profits 
nothing, the sense is to be drawn from the matter 
of the declaration. For, because they considered 
his word as hard and intolerable, as if he had de- 
termined that his flesh was truly to be eaten by 
them, he premised, It is tlie Spirit that quickeneth, 
in order that he might arrange the state of salva- 
tion according to the Spirit. And to the same 
effect he subjoined: The flesh profits nothing, that 
is, for quickening. Because also he will have the 
Spirit to be understood, it further follows: The 
words which I have spolcen unto you are Spirit, and 
are life. As also above ; he that heareth my ivords 
and believeth on him that sent me, hath eternal life, 
and shall not come into judgment, but shall pass from 
death unto life. Constituting, therefore, the Word 
the vivifier, because the Word is Spirit and life, he 
called the same his flesh also ; and because the Word 
was made flesh, he is therefore to be sought for the 
sake of life, and to be devoured by the hearing, and to 
be ruminated by the understanding, and digested by 
faith. For a little before he had pronounced his flesh 
to be celestial bread also, everywhere enforcing, by 
the allegory of necessary foods, a remembrance of 
their fathers who preferred the bread and flesh of the 
Egyptians to the divine calling. Adverting there- 



56 ON THE EUCHARIST. 

fore to their thoughts, because he perceived that 
they were scattered, he said, The flesh profits nothing. 
What is there in this to destroy the resurrection 
of the flesh ?" c 

Again, this author remarks in his exposition of 
the Lord's Prayer: "How fitly has the divine 
wisdom arranged the prayer! that after things 
celestial, that is, after the name of God, the will of 
God, and the kingdom of Gocl, it has also made 
place in the petition for terrestrial necessities ; for 
the Lord has also said : Seek first the kingdom [of 
heaven] and then these things shall also be added unto 
you. We may, however, rather understand, give us 

THIS DAY OUR DAILY BREAD, ill a SPIRITUAL sense. For 

Christ is our bread ; because Christ is life, and bread 
is life. / am, he says, the bread of life. And a 
little before: 'the bread is the Word of the living 
God who descended from heaven/ Moreover, be- 
cause also by bread his body is understood ; this is 
my body. Therefore, by asking for daily bread, we 
pray for a perpetuity in Christ, and an inseparability 
from his body [spiritually understood.] But al- 
though this word [or expression] is admitted car- 
nally, it cannot be done without the religion of 
spiritual discipline." 

In the former passage quoted from this author, 
he clearly appears to have had no idea of expound- 
ing the sixth of John directly of the Eucharist ; 
much less of a carnal manducation of the food there 
spoken of. In the latter passage, though allusion 
is made to this sacrament, it is very evident that 
Christ's body is to be received spiritually, but not 
carnally. 

4. Cyprian, who regarded Tertullian as his mas- 
ter, in his treatise on the Lord's Prayer, makes use 

c Tertul. de Resurrectione Carnis, cap. 37. Edit. Rigalt. p. 347. 
D Idem de Oratione, cap. vi, p. 131. 



PATRISTIC VIEW OF JOHN VI. 57 

of the following language: " Give us this day our 
daily bread. This may be understood both spirit- 
ually and simply, each sense, by the divine blessing 
conducing to salvation. For Christ is the bread of 
life, and this is not the bread of all, but it is ours. 
And as w T e say, Our Father, because he is the 
Father of [us] who understand and believe, so also 
we call [him] our bread, because Christ is the bread 
of us who are connected with his body. But we 
pray that this bread be given us daily, lest we, who 
are in Christ, and receive the Eucharist daily as the 
food of salvation, should, by the intervention of 
some more grievous fault, be separated from the 
body of Christ, whilst debarred, and not communi- 
cating, we are prohibited from the heavenly bread, 
he himself declaring and admonishing : ' I am the 
bread of life which came down from heaven. If 
any one shall eat of my bread he shall live forever. 
But the bread which I will give is my flesh for the 
life of the world.' 

" When, therefore, he says, if any one shall eat 
of his bread, as it is manifest that they live who 
belong to his body, and receive the Eucharist with 
a right of communicating, so, on the other hand, 
it is to be feared, and we are to pray that no one 
remain far from salvation, whilst debarred, he is 
separated from the body of Christ, who himself 
threatens and says : i Except ye shall eat the flesh 
of the Son of man, and drink his blood, ye shall 
not have life in you/ " E 

This passage affords another example of apply- 
ing the language of our Lord in John vi, to a right 
participation of Christ in the Eucharist. But from 
his language, we are by no means to conclude, that 
our author considered the discourse as originally 
and directly intended of this Sacrament. So also 

e Do Orat. Dom. 



58 ON THE EUCHAEIST. 

the application of the Lord's prayer for daily bread 
to the Eucharist, says Dr. Turner, "is almost uni- 
versal with the Fathers, and yet it is hardly to be 
supposed that they understood this as the direct 
! and original purport of the petition, as taught by 
our Lord to his Apostles during his life-time. Being 
a prayer for sustenance of the whole man, both 
soul and body, they understood it to comprehend a 
reference to all the means by which such sustenance 
might be obtained." 1 

And thus, in the quotation which has been made, 
Cyprian regarded Christ himself as spiritually our 
food, and considering this as given especially in the 
Eucharist, directs the attention to this sacrament. 

5. Clement, of Alexandria, after speaking of those 
who are called earned and spiritual, [I Cor. iii: 1,] 
and of the difference between milk and meat [verse 
2] as symbolically used to designate spiritual food, 
continues : " Elsewhere also the Lord in the Gospel 
according to John, has explained this by symbols, 
saying, 'eat my flesh and drink my blood,' plainly 
speaking in allegory of the drinking of faith and 
the promise, by which the church, as a man, con- 
sisting of many members, is watered and increased, 
is closely united together and composed of both ; 
of faith as the body, and of hope as the soul, as 
also the Lord [was composed] of flesh and blood. 
For, in reality, the blood of faith is hope, with 
which faith is connected as it were by a living 
principle." F 

Subsequently in the same chapter he thus ex- 
presses himself: " The Word is all things to the 
babe, both father and mother, schoolmaster and 
nourisher. Eat, says he, my flesh and drink my 
blood. These appropriate nourishments for us, the 

i In Opere citat. p. 119. 

pPsedagog. lib. I, cap. vi, p. 121. Edit. Oxoii. 1715. 



PATRISTIC VIEW OF JOHN VI. 59 

Lord supplies. He reaches forth flesh and pours 
out blood, and nothing is wanting for the increase 
of his little ones. wonderful mystery! He com- 
mands us to put oif the old fleshy corruption, as 
also the old nourishment, that we, partaking of 
other new food of Christ, and receiving, may, if it 
be possible, lay him up within ourselves, and enclose 
the Saviour in the breast in order to set aright the 
affections of our flesh. 

" But not for this reason will you understand, that 
it is in like manner, of less value. And therefore 
give ear. As to [the word] flesh [in the passage 
just quoted from John vi,] it allegorically signifies 
to us the Holy Spirit, for by him has the flesh [of 
Christ] been made. As to [the word] blood, it in- 
timates to us the Word, for as rich blood, the Word 
is poured into [our] life; but the Lord, the mixture 
of them both, is the nourishment of his babes; the 
Lord, Spirit and Word: the food, that is, the Lord 
Jesus, that is, the Word of God, the Spirit incar- 
nated: the sanctified heavenly flesh; the food, the 
milk of the Father, by which alone we babes are 
nursed." 

After this, on the words, And the bread which I 
will give is my flesh, he makes the following suffi- 
ciently mystical remarks: "But flesh is irrigated 
by blood, and blood is allegorically called wine. 
It must therefore be known that, as bread, broken 
into a mixture of wine and water, absorbs the 
wine but leaves the water, so also the flesh of 
Christ, the bread of heaven, drinks up the blood, 
nourishing heavenly men unto incorruption, but 
leaving to corruption those fleshly desires alone." 
And then he adds what is more important: "Thus 
in many ways the Word is allegorically represented 
as meat, and flesh, and nourishment, and bread, 

G Ibid, pp. 123-4. 



60 ON THE EUCHARIST. 

and blood, and milk. The Lord is all things for 
the enjoyment of us who have believed in him." H 

After this he repeatedly teaches the figurative 
signification of the term blood. Thus, " He declares 
that he will adorn the body of the Word in his own 
spirit, as he will assuredly nourish with his spirit 
those that hunger for the Word. But that the 
blood is the word, the blood of righteous Abel, 
which speaks with God, is witness." 1 And, "there- 
fore both blood and milk are a symbol of the Lord's 
passion and doctrine." J 

In the next book he tells us that "the blood of 
Christ is two- ibid, for the one is his fleshly, by which 
we have been redeemed from corruption ; the other 
his spiritual, that is, by which we have been 
anointed. And this is to drink the blood of Jesus, 
to partake of the Lord's incorruption." K 

Again, in his "Miscellanies," after quoting 1 
Cor. iii : 1, 2, 3, he says: "If therefore milk is 
called by the Apostle the nourishment of babes, 
but meat the food of the perfect, then milk will be 
understood [to be] the first rudiments of instruc- 
tion, as if the first nourishment of the soul ; but 
meat, the visible contemplation ] [of the Christian 
mysteries. ) And this is the flesh and blood of 
the Word, to wit, the apprehension of the divine 
power and essence. Taste and see that Christ is 
the Lord, says [the Psalmist, xxxiv : 8;] for in this 
manner he imparts himself to those who, after a 
more spiritual manner, partake of such food." M 

11 Ibid, p. 126. ' Ibid. J Page 127. 

K Idem Psedagog., lib. ii, cap. 2, 

1 This is evidently an allusion to the discipline of the early 
church, whereby the catechumens were made to undergo a 
course of primary instruction before their initiation by bap- 
tism; after which they were, with the rest of the faithful, ad- 
mitted to be present at the celebration of the sacraments. 

M Stromal, lib. v, cap. 10, prope ult. 



PATRISTIC VIEW OF JOHN VI. 61 

These several passages I have produced from 
the writings of this author, who is regarded as one 
the most pious, learned, and orthodox of the earlier 
Christian Fathers, not because they comprise any 
very lucid exposition of our Lord's discourse, but 
because, of the various interpretations given by him, 
in no one instance does he explain the terms^/e^and 
blood used in John vi, literally. And to me the 
testimony of this great philosopher and master of 
the Alexandrian school, at the close of the second 
century, is instead of a myriad modern witnesses 
for a literal interpretation of our Saviour's dis- 
course. 

While the latter dwell upon the gross idea of 
eating and drinking the real flesh and blood of 
the Son of God, his thoughts and devout affections 
rise, far above the mere letter, to the blessed per- 
son thereby signified, the participation of whose 
flesh and blood is no other than the feeding upon 
Christ after a spiritual and heavenly manner, — to 
partake of his incorruption, to receive the gift of 
the Holy Ghost, to apprehend the divine power 
and essence. The former idea is sensual, profitless, 
and revolting ; the latter is spiritual, life-giving, 
and soul-inspiring. The one tends to degrade the 
mysteries of our holy religion, and reduce to con- 
tempt their divine author; the other gives them 
their proper position in the economy of grace, and 
shows forth the dignity and sublime character of 
the Eedeemer. 

6. In passing to consider the testimony of Origen, 
it may not be improper to remark, that although 
he was distinguished for his great abilities and ex- 
tensive learning, he nevertheless fell into several 
important errors, which were made the subject of 
stricture and condemnation by other and later 
Fathers of the Church. This remark, however, 
does not apply to the views entertained and taught 
G 



62 ON THE EUCHARIST. 

by him in regard to trie doctrine of the Eucharist, 
nor to any exposition given by him of the discourse 
of our Lord as contained in John vi. Having been 
regarded as orthodox on these points by those that 
flourished in the ages immediately succeeding him, 
I shall therefore indulge no scruple in producing 
his testimony. 

The first which I will offer seems, in few words, 
to embody a general canon for interpreting John 
vi. "If we speak those things that are perfect, 
that are forcible, that are more strong, we set 
before you the flesh of the Word of God to be 
eaten." N 

Very like this is another passage. Man did eat 
angels' bread, dec. The Saviour says, "I am the 
bread that came down from heaven. This bread, 
therefore, angels formerly ate, but now men also. 
To eat here signifies to know. For the mind eats 
what it knows, and what it does not know it does 
not eat." 

Speaking of a spiritual understanding of the law, 
be says: "Therefore we go out from the letter of 
the law ; but being constituted under the power of 
a spiritual law, spiritually celebrating we fully per- 
form all things which are there commanded to be 
corporally done. For we cast out the old leaven 
of malice and wickedness, and celebrate the pass- 
over with the unleavened bread of sincerity and 
truth; Christ supping with us according to the will 
of the lamb, who says ; Except ye shall eat my 
flesh and drink my blood, ye shall not have life in 

Here is doubtless an application of the language 
of our Saviour to the Eucharist, of which he after- 

N In Num., Horn, xxiii, Opera torn, ii, p. 359. 
° Selecta in Psal. lxvii, Opera torn, ii, p. 771. 
p Comment, in Matt. Tract, xxxv, torn, iii, pp. 895-6. 



PATRISTIC VIEW OF JOHN VI. 63 

ward discourses at some length in the same Tract. 
And the fact that he thus spiritually applies these 
words of our Lord's discourse to the Eucharist, is 
important, not only as showing that he does not 
interpret them literally, but also as proving that, 
in this sacrament, he does not understand the body 
and blood of Christ to be corporally present and 
received. 1 And this agrees with his subsequent 
teaching, "that the bread, which God the Word, 
1 confesseth to be his body, is the nutrient word of 
souls," "the word that nourishes and gladdens the 
heart/' 

Again, on the words of the Apostle: "For he is 
not a Jew who is one outwardly ; neither is that 
circumcision which is without, in the flesh ; but he 
is a Jew who is one inwardly ; and circumcision is 
that of the heart in the spirit, not in the letter ;" 
(Rom. ii : 28, 29,) he remarks, " For they feast 
upon the inward and unleavened bread of since- 
rity and truth, which is invisible. They also eat 
Christ, the passover, who was slain for us, who 
said: ' Except ye eat my flesh ye have not life 
abiding in you.' And with this true drink, which 
they drink as his blood, they anoint the lintel over 
the door of the house of their soul, seeking, not as 
they, [the Jews,] glory of men, but of God, who 
seeth in secret." Q 

When passing from the discussion of drinking 
wine to the consideration of foods, our author re- 
marks : "But now let us consider somewhat that is 
read concerning those things which are clean and 
unclean, or of foods, or animals. And as in the ex- 
planation of the cup we ascended from the shadow 

1 This remark will apply to others of the Fathers, who also 
interpret our Lord's language spiritually, or figuratively, and 
at the same time extend its application to the Eucharist. 

Q Ubi Sup. Tract, xxiv, p. 837. 



G4 ON THE EUCHARIST. 

to the truth of the spiritual cup, so also in respect 
of the foods which are spoken of by a shadow, let 
us ascend to those which by the Spirit are the true 
foods." After quoting several passages of Scripture, 
(I Cor. x: 2, et seq.; Acts, x: 9, et seq.; Matt, xiii: 
47, et seq.) which speak of spiritual nourishment 
under the idea of corporeal food, he adds : " But that 
what we say may appear the more clearly to thy 
understandings let us take an example from the 
greater, that descending thence gradually we may 
come even to the less. Our Lord and Saviour says: 
' Except ye shall eat my flesh and drink my blood 
ye shall not have life in yourselves. My flesh is 
meat indeed, and my blood is drink indeed.' 

" Therefore, because Jesus is all clean throughout, 
all his flesh is meat, and all his blood is drink, 
[Why?] because every work of his is holy, and 
every word of his is true. Moreover therefore, both 
his flesh is the true meat and his blood the true 
drink. 

"For, with the flesh and blood of his word, 
as with clean meat and drink, he gives to drink 
and feeds the whole race of mankind. 11 In the 
second place, after the flesh, Peter and Paul and 
all the Apostles are clean food. In the third 
place, their disciples ; and so each one in pro- 
portion to his deserts, or the purity of his thoughts, 
is made clean food to his neighbor. He who cannot 
hear these things, carps, perhaps, and turns away 
his ear as did they who said, ' How will this man 
give us his flesh to eat ? Who can hear him ? And 
they departed from him.' But if you are sons of 
the Church, if you are imbued with the Gospel 
mysteries, if the Word made flesh dwells in you, 
then do you know what we say, because they are 
the Lord's, lest he who is ignorant should be ignor- 
ant," 

E In Levit, Homil. vii, No. 5, torn, ii, p. 225. 



PATRISTIC VIEW OF JOHN VI. 65 

The whole scope and design of this passage, as 
well as its language, clearly show that Origen under- 
stood the words of our Lord in John vi, in a spiri- 
tual sense. For the object of his discourse is to 
ascend from the shadow to the substance — from the 
letter to the thing signified ; in other words, to give 
the practical and spiritual meaning of the inspired 
word. And he quotes, by way of illustration, what 
he considers a most striking example of the figura- 
tive use of Scripture phraseology. 

Indeed, comment is unnecessary ; for he goes on 
to say: "Know you that those things which are 
written in the divine volumes are figures, and, 
therefore, as spiritual, and not as carnal, do you ex- 
amine and understand what is said. For if as carnal 
you understand these things, they injure you, and 
do not nourish. For there is in the Gospels a 
letter that kills ; not only in the Old Testament is 
there a letter found that kills. There is also in the 
New Testament a letter that kills him who does 
not understand spiritually what is said. For if 
you follow according to the letter, this itself that is 
said; Except you shall eat my flesh and drink my 
blood, this letter kills." s 

" Moreover, when the Lord said, l The bread which 
I will give is my flesh for the life of the world/ 
when the Jews strove among themselves, saying: 
' How can this man give us his flesh to eat ? ' We 
prove that they were not so stupid who heard as to 
suppose that the speaker invited his hearers to come 
to him and eat his flesh." T 

Lastly, " We are said to drink the blood of Christ, 
not only in the rite of the sacrament, but also when 
we receive his words in which life consists, as he 
says, 'The words which I have spoken are spirit 

s (Ibid.) 

T Com. in Joan., Opera torn, iv, p. 364. 



66 ON THE EUCHARIST. 

and life.' He, therefore, was wounded, whose blood 
we drink, that is, receive the words of his doc- 
trine." 17 

7. Eusebius, paraphrasing upon the words of John 
vi, says: "Think not that I speak of that flesh 
with which I am compassed, as if it were necessary 
to eat this, neither suppose that I command you to 
drink this sensible and bodily blood. So that those 
very words and speeches are his flesh and blood. 
For these things understood according to sense 
profit nothing, but it is the quickening Spirit that 
profits those who are able to understand these 
things , spiritually." v 

8. Athanasius, when treating of the human nature 
of Christ, says: "Unless the Holy Spirit were of 
the substance of that which is only good, it would 
not have been called good, since the Lord refused 
to be called good, as iar as he was a man, saying: 
' Why callest thou me good ? There is none good 
except the one God.' But the Scripture does not 
scruple to call the Holy Spirit good, according to 
David, who says: 'Thy good Spirit shall lead me 
in the right way.' Again, the Lord says concern- 
ing himself: 'I am the living bread which came 
down from heaven.' Elsewhere he has called the 
Holy Spirit heavenly bread, saying : " Give us daily 
our daily bread.' For he has taught us in the 
prayer to ask now for daily bread, that is, for that 
which shall be, the first fruits of which we have in 
the present life, being partakers of the flesh of 
Christ; as he said, 'And the bread which I will 
give is my flesh for the life of the world.' For the 

FLESH OF THE LORD IS A QUICKENING SPIRIT." W 

u In Num., Horn, xvi, torn, ii, p. 334. 
y Eccles. Theol., lib. iii, cap. 17. 

w De Humana Natura Suscepta, Opera Paris, 1627, torn, i, 
p. 607. 



PATRISTIC VIEW OF JOHN VI. 67 

In the former part of this passage this author dis- 
tinguishes the Holy Spirit from the human nature 
of Christ ; subsequently, however, he explains the 
term bread as used in the Lord's Prayer and John 
vi, as signifying the same thing, that is, the Holy 
Spirit, or flesh of Christ ; which shows most conclu- 
sively that he did not understand our Lord's dis- 
course literally. 

9. Cyril of Jerusalem, in one of his lectures to 
the recently baptized, briefly refers to this discourse 
of our Lord. " When Christ formerly addressed 
the Jews, he said: 'Except ye eat my flesh and 
drink my blood, ye have not life in yourselves.' 
But they, not spiritually understanding his sayings, 
were offended and went back, thinking that he ex- 
horted them to eat his flesh." x 

Observe : the offence of the Jews and their de- 
parture from Christ, is attributed to their "not 
spiritually understanding" our Lord's words. 

10. Basil, Bishop of Cassarea, remarks: '"He 
that eateth me,' he says, 'shall live by me.' For 
we eat his flesh and drink his blood, being made 
partakers, through his incarnation and perceptible 
life, of the Word and wisdom. For he denominated 
his whole mystical sojourn, flesh and blood ; and he 
made manifest his doctrine, by which the soul is 
nourished, consisting of practical, and natural, and 
theological. ' ,Y 

11. '-' We read the Holy Scriptures," says Jerome: 
" I suppose the Gospel to be the body of Jesus, the 
Holy Scriptures his doctrine. And when he says, 
' He that shall not eat my flesh and drink my blood,' 
although it may be understood in the mystery, 
nevertheless, the word of the Scriptures, the divine 
doctrine, is more truly the body of Christ and his 

x Catecli. Mystagog. V, § 1, Opera, Oxon. 1703, p. 293. 
y Epist. cxli. 



68 ON THE EUCHARIST. 

blood. If, when we go to the mystery — he that is 
faithful understands — if one fall into sin, he is in 
peril. If, when we hear the word of God, and the 
word of God, and the flesh of Christ, and his blood 
is poured into our ears, and we are thinking of 
something else, into how great danger do we run ! " 

He relates that, according to a Jewish tradition, 
the taste of the manna in the desert corresponded 
to the individual desire of the consumer, and adds: 
"So also in the flesh of Christ, which is the word 
of his doctrine, that is, the interpretation of the 
Holy Scriptures, as we will, so we also take meat. 
If thou art holy, thou findest refreshment ; if thou 
art a sinner, thou findest torment/' z 

"By a figure of speech we may say that all 
lovers of pleasure, more than lovers of God, are 
sanctified in gardens and in dwellings, because the 
mysteries of truth cannot enter, [them] and they 
eat the food of impiety while they are unholy in 
body and spirit ; they neither eat the flesh of Jesus 
nor drink his blood, concerning which he says, 
' He that eateth my flesh and drinketh my blood 
hath eternal life.' For Christ our passover has 
been sacrificed, who is eaten not without, but in 
one house and within " a — in the one house of the 
Church, and in the soul of the believer is his prob- 
able meaning. That he intends a spiritual mandu- 
cation of Christ's flesh, in this passage, is evident 
from the antithetic relation in which it is put to 
the eating of the food of impiety by the lovers of 
pleasure. 

12. In his treatise on Christian Doctrine, Augus- 
tine comments on the fifty-third verse of John vi as 
follows: "If the discourse is preceptive, whether 

z Hieron. Com. in Psal. cxlvii, v, 5. Tom. iv, p. 394. 

a Idem Com. in Isa. Proph. lib. xviii, torn, iii, p. 506. See 
also a passage cited below, Letter viii, where he plainly distin- 
guishes Christ's divine or spiritual blood from his real blood. 



PATRISTIC VIEW OF JOHN VI. 69 

forbidding a wicked act or crime, or enjoining benefi- 
cence, it is not figurative. But if it seem to 
command a wicked act or crime, or to forbid some- 
thing useful or beneficial, it is figurative. ' Unless 
ye shall eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink 
his blood ye have not life in you/ seems to enjoin 
a crime or wicked act, it is therefore a figure, com- 
manding to communicate in the Lord's passion, and 
sweetly and profitably to lay up in the memory 
that his flesh has been crucified and wounded for 
us." b 

"They said to him, ' What shall we do that we 
may work the work of God ? ' For he had said to 
them, ' Labor for the meat that perisheth not, but 
endureth to eternal life.' 'What shall we do?' 
say they ; ' by observing what, shall we be able fully 
to perform this precept ? ' Jesus answered and said 
to them, ' This is the work of God, that ye believe 
on him whom he hath sent.' This, therefore, is to 
eat the meat that doth not perish, but endureth to 
eternal life. Why dost thou prepare the teeth and 
stomach ? Believe and thou hast eaten." c 

" Finally, he now explains how that may be done 
of which he speaks, and what it is to eat his body 
and drink his blood. ' He that eateth my flesh and 
drinketh my blood abideth in me and I in him.' 
To abide in Christ, and to have him abiding in us, 
this is, therefore, to eat that food and drink that 
drink. And for this reason he who does not abide 
in Christ, and in whom Christ does not abide, with- 
out doubt does neither spiritually eat his flesh nor 
drink his blood, although he carnally and visibly 
press with his teeth the sacrament of Christ's body 
and blood ; but he rather eats and drinks the sa- 
crament of so great a thing to his condemnation." d 

b De Doct. Ohristi, lib. lii, cap. 16. 

In Johan. Evang., cap. vi. Tract, xxv, §12. 

d Idem Tract. xxvi.§ 18. 



70 OX THE EUCHARIST. 

From these quotations it is very evident that the 
ancient Fathers understood a spiritual participa- 
tion of Christ, and a union with him by faith, to 
have been intended by our Saviour in his discourse 
to the Jews at Capernaum. 

It was doubtless a thorough acquaintance with 
the writings of antiquity that compelled the learned 
Erasmus, in his notes on the fifty-first verse of 
John vi, to acknowledge that " the ancients inter- 
pret this place of heavenly doctrine." e 

Whilst all this remains true, it is granted that 
some of them apply the language of our Lord in 
question to the Eucharist as the means by which, 
in a great degree, faith is promoted and a union 
with Christ effected and maintained. Thus Clement, 
of Alexandria, teaches that the eucharistic "mix- 
ture of wine and water feeds unto faith ; " and, 
" they that partake of the Eucharist in faith are 
made holy in body and soul." f And Cyril of Je- 
rusalem, exhorts : "Wherefore with all assurance 
let us partake of the body and blood of Christ ; for 
in the type of bread his body is given to thee, and 
in the type of wine his blood is given to thee ; so 
that partaking of the body and blood of Christ thou 
mayest be made of the same body and blood with 
him." g 

Entertaining such views of the efficacy of the 
Eucharist when duly received by faith, it is by no 
means strange that the Fathers should apply the 
language of our Saviour in John vi to this sacra- 
ment, since it expresses, in the most forcible man- 
ner, the very union supposed to be effected through 
the instrumentality of this eminent means of grace. 
Such an application of our Lord's words is, without 
doubt, in perfect keeping with orthodoxy. 

e Crit. Sac. in Johan, torn, vi, p. 115. Edit. Amst. 1098. 

f Lib. ii, cap. 2. 

s Catech. Mystag. iv, p. 292. 



PATRISTIC VIEW OF JOHN VI. 71 

With such an amount of testimony, gathered 
from the writings of the most distinguished Fathers 
that flourished during a period of more than four 
hundred years from the Christian era, and embrac- 
ing the purest ages of ancient Christianity, it is 
not a little remarkable that men of acknowledged 
ability and extensive research; that men, avowedly 
claiming the inheritance of ancient doctrine as 
peculiarly theirs ; and above all, that men, nursed 
at the breast of a professedly holy and infallible 
mother, and sworn to interpret the Sacred Scriptures 
according to the unanimous consent of the holy 
Fathers, should, in these latter days of reading and 
intelligence, have the boldness to urge the literal 
interpretation as the only allowable and consistent 
meaning of our Saviour's discourse at Capernaum. 
The exclusive pretensions of those who advocate 
this carnal exposition, remind us of the professions 
of its original interpreters, who, on one occasion, 
vaunted themselves as being the children of Abra- 
ham. (John, viii: 39.) 

In estimating our relationship to the ancient 
Christian family, we shall do well to keep in mind 
the principle then sanctioned by our Saviour, and 
look for a family resemblance in that vital principle 
and distinctive feature of Christianity, an evangeli- 
cal faith, and its legitimate and necessary fruits. 
Such is the characteristic mark of God's household 
in all ages of the world. 

But before closing the historical representation of 
our subject, I must produce the testimony of a few 
more recent witnesses, both Papal and Protestant. 

Innocent III, the very Pope of your church, who 
is regarded as the establisher of the dogma of tran- 
substantiation, treating of the mysteries of the 
Mass, says, " The Lord saying, c except ye eat of the 
flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, ye 
have no life in you/ speaks of the spiritual mandu- 



72 ON THE EUCHARIST. 

cation: in this manner the good only do eat the 
body of Christ/' 1 

Pope Pius II says, " The sense of the Gospel of 
John is not such as you ascribe to it, for there it 
is not commanded to drink at the Sacrament, but a 
manner of spiritual drinking is taught. The Lord, 
when he says, ' It is the spirit that quickeneth, the 
flesh profiteth nothing/ by these words declares, 
in that place,, the secret mysteries of the spiritual 

drink, and not of the carnal." " 'The words 

that I speak unto you, they are spirit and they are 
life ;' wilt thou know openly, the Evangelist speaks 
of the spiritual manducation which is made by faith, 
(not by the mouth.) Consider the Lord's words, 
'He that eateth and drinketh,' are words of the 
present tense and not of the future ; at that very 
instant, therefore, (more than a year before the last 
supper,) there were some that did eat him and drink 
him." Again, " Ye must not wonder at some doc- 
tors speaking of the sacramental communion, and 
counseling the people to it, who employ St. John's 
words; yet, it does not, on this account, follow, 
that such is the true and proper meaning of this 
place." 2 

Gabeiel Biel says, "the doctors hold, with a 
common consent, that in the sixth of John, no 
mention is made but of the spiritual manducation." 3 

And Stapleton affirms that, "St. John writes 
nothing of the eucharistic supper, because the other 
three Evangelists before him had fully described 
it." 4 

1 Lib. iv. cap. 14. This and the three authors following are 
cited by Ousley. Old Christianity against Papal Novelties, 
p. 202. 

2 Pius ii, Ep. 130, ad Cardinalem Carvialem. 

3 Gabriel Biel, in Lesson xxxvi, can. Missre. 

4 Johannes de eucharistica coena nihil scribit, eo quod caeteri 
tres evangelistae ante eum, earn plene descripsisent. In promp. 
Cath. Ser. 1. Hebd. Sanct. 



PATRISTIC VIEW OF JOHN 71. 73 

To acid farther remarks upon the testimony of 
this " cloud of witnesses" would he but a needless 
multiplication of words. I therefore submit, for 
your careful examination, the foregoing, with the 
request that you consider well the force of the 
whole argument before you proceed to set it aside, 
and produce something better, before you ask me 
to abandon my own convictions, and the concurrent 
testimony of the ancient writers of the church. 
For, "An honest man's the noblest work of God." 

To possess the consciousness of such a character 
is the constant aim of him who is permitted to sub- 
scribe himself. 

Your unworthy Friend and Brother, 

E. 0. P. 



LETTER V. 

DISCUSSION OF THE WORDS USED BY OUR LORD WHEN 
HE INSTITUTED THE SACRAMENT OF THE EUCHARIST 
AND THE FIGURATIVE INTERPRETATION SHOWN TO 
ACCORD WITH SCRIPTURE USAGE. 

Dear Brother: — We now come to the considera- 
tion of the words used by our Saviour when he, in 
presence of his twelve disciples, instituted the 
Eucharistic Sacrament. 

You are aware that the history of this institution 
is given by the first three Evangelists, Matthew, 
Mark and Luke, and also by St. Paul in the 
eleventh chapter of his first Epistle to the Corin- 
thians. By comparing the several descriptions 
given by these sacred writers, it will at once be 
seen that they agree substantially in the account 
which they give, notwithstanding the slight differ- 
ence of phraseology employed. It is, therefore, 
sufficient to cite, for the sake of convenient refer- 
ence, the words recorded by the Evangelists, Mat- 
thew and Luke: 



"And, as they were eating, 
Jesus took bread, and blessed 
it, and brake it, and gave it 
to the disciples, and said 



"And he took bread, and gave 
thanks, and brake it, and gave 
unto them, saying, This is my 
body which is given for you : 



Take, eat, this is my body. | this do in remembrance of 
"And he took the cup, and me. 



gave thanks, and gave it to 
them, saying, Drink ye all of 
it, for this is my blood of the 
new testament, which is shed 
for many for the remission of ixxii 
sins." Matt xxvi : 26, 27, 28 



"Likewise also the cup after 
supper, saying, This cup is the 
new testament in my blood, 
which is shed for you." Luke 



THE WORDS OF INSTITUTION. 75 

The question is, what did our Lord mean when 
he said of the Eucharistic elements, This is my 
B0DY — This is my blood? You suppose that he 
intended to convey the idea, and was understood 
by those present to affirm, that those elements 
were no longer in their physical substance, bread 
and wine as when first taken, but the real and sub- 
stantial body and blood of Christ himself; that is, 
you take the words in question in their literal and 
grammatical sense. 

On the contrary, I understand these words in 
their metaphorical sense, which, by consequence, 
excludes the idea of a corporeal presence of Christ's 
flesh and blood in the Eucharist. 

In discussing these words of our Lord our line of 
argument will be first : to prove that the words of 
institution may betaken figuratively, and, secondly : 
to demonstrate that, to avoid great difficulties and 
plain contradictions, we are compelled to adopt this 
figurative interpretation. 

The most ancient rule with which I am acquainted 
for the discovery of Scriptural truth, is that given 
by Clement of Alexandria. After speaking of the 
perfection and fullness of Scripture, he adds: "But 
the truth is not discovered by changing the sig- 
nification of things, for, in this manner, do they 
overturn all true doctrines; but by considering 
thoroughly what is perfectly proper and fitting to 
the Lord, and to G-od the Creator, and, by confirm- 
ing each of those things demonstrated, according to 
the Scriptures, from those Scriptures which again 
are similar." A 

From which we may observe: 1. We are not to 
change the meaning of words from that sense in- 
tended to be given them by the author. 2. Our 
interpretations of Scripture must so accord with the 

A Stromal, lib. vii,cap. 16. Edit. Oxonii, 1715, vol. ii, p. 891. 



76 ON THE EUCHARIST. 

well known character of our Lord and Saviour, and 
of God the Creator, as not to conflict with the re- 
vealed attributes of either, considered as Redeemer 
or Creator. 3. Our proofs must be strengthened 
by the concurrent testimony of other and similar 
Scriptures, which evidently implies, that they are 
not to be such as may be weakened or destroyed by 
other Scriptures. As a general rule of interpreta- 
tion, the above may be regarded as sufficiently cor- 
rect, and we shall do well to have it constantly in 
mind in our Scriptural expositions ; but in order to 
have some more particular standard, by which to 
regulate our present inquiries, and to determine the 
correctness of our results, I think you will agree 
with me in adopting the following rule, viz : 

The literal meaning of a text is to beretained, %ohen 
it can be done, tvithout conflicting with natural reason, 
and tvithout being repugnant to any other Scripture 
clearly revealed, or to the general spirit and scope of 
the revealed Word of God ; but that the literal mean- 
ing of words is to be given up, if it be either improper, 
or involve an impossibility ; or when ivords, properly 
taken, contain any thing contrary to the doctrinal or 
moral precepts delivered in the other parts of the 
Scriptures. 2 

2. In view of the method already suggested, and 
the principles of interpretation adopted, let us in- 
quire whether any corresponding examples of figura- 
tive language, are furnished us in the Holy Scrip- 
tures. 

I am free to admit that the expressions, this is 
my body, and, this is my blood, are, abstractly con- 
sidered, capable of the interpretation given them 
by either party : for, as no one will deny, that, on 
the strictest principles of grammar, they may be 
understood literally, so no one of common intelli- 

2 See Horned Introduction, vol. i, p. 356. 



THE WORDS OF INSTITUTION. 77 

gence can deny, that, on the principles of rhetoric, 
they may be understood figuratively. 

These expressions, however, are not isolated ; they 
constitute a part of the whole revealed Word of God. 
The true point of our present essay is, therefore, to 
answer this simple inquiry: From Scriptural usage, 
may the words in question, be understood figuratively ? 
When God was about to deliver his chosen people 
from their Egyptian servitude, he found it necessary 
to inflict severe judgments upon those that held 
them in bondage, and refused obedience to his com- 
mand to let the oppressed go free. After having 
afflicted the land with several distressing plagues, 
without affecting the heart of Pharaoh sufficiently 
to induce him to permit the Israelites to depart, he 
resolved, with one terrible blow, to strike alarm to 
the heart of Egypt's cruel slaveholders, by cutting 
off at a stroke, in one dismal night, all the first- 
born of the land. But he commanded his people 
to take a lamb, without blemish, a male of the first 
year, and, on the evening before he inflicted his last 
and fearful plague, to slay it, and strike the blood 
thereof on the two side-posts, and on the upper 
door-posts of the houses in which they should eat it. 
And this blood was for a sign upon their dwellings, 
seeing which, God promised to pass over them and 
destroy them not. Now the act of God in passing 
over the children of Israel constituted the real pass- 
over. But he says of the lamb : It is the Lord's 
pass-over. (Exod. xii: 11.) 

Here God instituted a feast to be observed once 
a year, forever, throughout the generations of Israel, 
for a memorial (v. 14) of their miraculous deliver- 
ance from Egypt. But the lamb slain, which was 
a type of the Lamb of God our passover, and in- 
tended to be afterward for a commemoration of the 
deliverance of Israel from Egypt, is declared to be the 
Lord's passover. Here then we have the sign called 



78 ON THE EUCHARIST. 

by the name of the thing signified. And this circum- 
stance is of additional importance to us, in the solu- 
tion of our question, from the fact, that the feast of the 
passover was to the Jew, under the old dispensation, 
what the feast of the Eucharist is to the Christian, 
under the new. As the ancient passover was insti- 
tuted the night before the actual deliverance of the 
children of Israel from the bondage of Egypt, so was 
the Lord's Supper instituted the night before the 
redemption of the world from the bondage of sin, 
by the death of the Lamb of God, our passover. 

Moreover, when the modern Jews celebrate thsi 
feast of the passover, the master of the family, and 
all the guests, are said to take hold of the dish con- 
taining the unleavened bread, previously broken, 
and exclaim : — u Lo this is the bread of affliction which 
all our ancestors ate in the land of Egy r pt." The anti- 
quity of the phrase, bread of affliction^ as applied 
to the Jewish passover, is evident, from its occur- 
rence in the sixteenth chapter of Deuteronomy. 
"Seven days shalt thou eat unleavened bread there- 
with, even the bread of affliction." [v. 3.] But, in 
the use of these words, no Jew ever entertained the 
most distant idea of his eating the identical bread 
of affliction which his ancestors ate in Egypt. And 
this manner of expression is perfectly analogous 
to that used in Exod. xii: 2, "It is the Lord's 
passover." 

Now suppose, what is highly probable, that our 
Saviour, when he ate the paschal supper with his 
disciples, made use of the same mode of expression 
as that employed in the Jewish ritual, it is per- 
fectly certain, that they could not be so stupid, as 
to suppose the bread broken by the Lord and given 
to them, to be the identical bread which their 
fathers ate in Egypt. Now whilst they were at the 
table, eating the passover, and thinking of the cir- 
cumstances of the delivery of their ancestors from 



THE WORDS OF INSTITUTION. 79 

servile bondage, with the words of God, used at the 
time of its institution, fresh upon their minds, and, 
very probably, similar words spoken at the time 
by their Divine Master, Jesus took bread, and hav- 
ing pronounced the blessing, broke it, and gave it 
to them, saying, This is my body. Is it at all prob- 
able, that the disciples, under these circumstances, 
and with such commemorative associations pressing 
upon their mind, would suppose, that the food last 
given was different in its nature from that given at 
the first? In other words, would they be likely to 
understand by the words, This is my body, that 
Christ had, by an exercise of his omnipotent and 
miraculous power, annihilated the substance of 
the bread, and, in its place, with all its sensible 
properties, created something entirely different, to 
wit, his own real human flesh, and bones, and 
nerves, and sinews, a thing never before intimated 
in the Holy Scriptures, unlike any other known 
exhibition of God's almighty energy, contrary to 
the united testimony of the senses of smell, taste, 
touch, and sight, and repugnant to natural reason ? 
Considering the words of the Eucharistic institution 
in connection with the circumstances in which they 
were pronounced, the corresponding relation which 
the Eucharist and the Jewish passover were designed 
to sustain to their respective dispensations, and the 
well known mode of figurative expression employed 
at the celebration of the latter, I can, by no possi- 
ble stretch of probability, suppose, that the disciples 
understood their Lord to speak literally on that 
occasion. On the contrary, it appears to me morally 
certain, that they must have understood the words 
of the eucharistic institution in the same manner 
that they did those of the paschal institution. 
Indeed, we have not the least intimation on record 
that the Apostles called in question, doubted, or 
even hesitated to receive, with the fullest satisfac- 



80 ON THE EUCHARIST. 

tion, these words of our Lord. Nor did they sub- 
sequently ask for an explanation of them, as they 
had done before when his language was not well 
understood. We are not, therefore, to doubt that 
they correctly understood the divine Teacher on 
this occasion. 

Now I hold it to be a moral impossibility, that 
the twelve disciples should have understood our 
Lord literally, and not have felt or expressed the 
least surprise at such extraordinary sentiment. 

They must, at least, have thought: How can 
these several morsels of food be that flesh and blood 
which lives and acts before us? How is it possible 
that our Lord, who has always, in the indubitable 
evidences which he has given us of his Messiahship 
by miracles, assumed the infallibility of our bodily 
senses, now delivers to us a doctrine Adiich entirely 
sets aside their testimony, and thus destroys all the 
former proofs of his character as the Messiah? How 
can our Saviour thus contradict himself and over- 
turn the whole fabric of Christianity ? Nay, it is 
altogether repugnant to reason itself, to suppose, 
that even omnipotence can make a plurality of 
things to be at the same time one and the same, in 
their physical substance. Had such thoughts occu- 
pied the mind of the disciples, the Saviour's omnis- 
cient mind would have detected them, and, in con- 
formity with his usual practice, he would have 
silenced their misgivings, by insisting upon the 
necessity of submission to the dogma, had they 
rightly understood his words, or corrected their 
imaginations had they been wrong. 

Dr. Wiseman's attempt to do away these diffi- 
culties, is truly pitiful. He observes: "We must, 
in the first place, remember that the Apostles 
were illiterate, uneducated, and by no means intel- 
lectual men at that time ; consequently we must not 
judge of their mind or of its operations as we should 



THE WORDS OF INSTITUTION. 81 

of a philosopher's, but we must look for its type 
among the ordinary class of virtuous and sensible, 
though ignorant men." 1 

Alas for the cause, that requires such an impu- 
tation of ignorance touching those holy men who 
had for years followed the Saviour, and listened 
to him who taught as never man taught, and to 
whom their Master had already said, "Unto you 
it is given to hioio the mysteries of the kingdom 
of God." (Mark iv : 2.) It is doubtless true, there 
fore, that the Apostles understood the doctrines 
into which they had been initiated by the Saviour's 
instruction, sufficiently well, at least, to know 
whether they were inconsistent the one with the 
other, unsuitable to the revealed attributes of God, 
or contrary to natural reason. We may not then 
assume, that, because they were unlearned in the 
wisdom of human science, they were not acquainted 
with those doctrines of Christianity, by the teaching 
of which they were soon to go forth and disciple all 
nations. 

If they were not philosophers themselves, it should 
be borne in mind, that they were the very men 
chosen to teach philosophers. But Dr. W., after- 
ward, on the supposition that " the Apostles had 
some notions of the repugnance of certain conceiv- 
able propositions to the unchangeable laws of 
nature," labors industriously to show, that they 
were not "likely to form, in an instant, decision to 
that effect on the literal import of their Divine 
Master's words ; " and that they would not have 
been right in so doing. 

His whole argument proceeds upon the assumed 
ground, that trau substantiation involves no farther 
departure from the established laws of nature, than 
those miracles which were wrought by Christ, dur- 

1 In Opere Citato Lect. vi, p. 210. 



82 ON THE EUCHARIST. 

ing his earlier ministrations. But, as I have 
already indicated, the latter are as unlike the 
former as light and darkness, as truth and error. 
This subject will be discussed hereafter in its more 
appropriate place ; we may therefore pass it over for 
the present, having remarked thus much to show 
only, that the doctrine in question is unlike any 
other known doctrine in the universe ; and secondly, 
on the supposition of its being true, that the igno- 
rance of the twelve Apostles is not to be presumed 
as the reason of their acquiescence in its difficul- 
ties, when it was originally propounded by Christ. 

Before taking leave of the Jewish passover, how- 
ever, whose institution and rites we have noticed, 
as illustrative of the meaning of the words of Christ, 
used at the Eucharistic institution, it will be in 
place to consider the objections, offered by Dr. W., 
against thus employing the expression, It is the 
Lords passover. He remarks : 

" 1. I say, then, in the first place, that if the 
words in question signify, l This represents the pass- 
over,' the many ceremonies and peculiar rites pre- 
scribed in eating the paschal lamb, of which they 
were spoken, were of a character to prepare the Jews 
for a symbolical explanation of them." 1 

Very true. How much more, therefore, must the 
disciples have been prepared "for a symbolical ex- 
planation" of our Lord's words, since they had just 
witnessed the performance of these very "ceremonies 
and peculiar rites," in the celebration of a feast, 
now disappearing with its dispensation, to give 
place for the Eucharist, corresponding to it, and so 
changed from it as to be better adapted to a new 
economy. Our author continues: 

"2. Again, granting the point at issue that the 
paschal sacrifice is called the Lord's passover, mean- 

1 Lecture v, pp. 195-G. 



THE WORDS OF INSTITUTION. 83 

ing that it was only its symbol, this might be a 
figure easily allowed; because it was familiar to 
the Hebrews to call sacrifices by the name of the 
object for which they were offered. Thus a peace- 
oiiering and a sin-offering are known in Hebrew by 
the simple designation of peace and sin. This, in 
fact, was so usual, as to have given rise to several 
peculiar images, as in Osee, iv : 8, where the priests 
are said i to eat the sins of the people ; ' and II Cor. v : 
21, where St. Paul says of God, 'Him who knew 
no sin, for us he hath made sin,' that is, an oblation 
for sin. In like manner, therefore, the sacrifice of 
the Lord's passover might by the same familiar 
image be called his passover." (p. 196.) 

All this simply shows that it was a well under- 
stood practice among the Jews to call one thing by 
the name of another ; so that, from this usage, they 
would be very likely to understand our Lord to 
speak in like manner when he said, This is my 
body. 

Dr. W. is entitled to our thanks for furnishing 
us this and the foregoing argument, as proving our 
symbolical interpretation. 

We re-assert, therefore, the perfect applicability 
of the words of the institution of the ancient pass- 
over to the illustration of the words of the eucha- 
ristic institution. As the former were confessedly 
used in a figurative sense, we fairly infer from this 
fact a figurative meaning of the words, This is my 
body, and This is my blood. 

Having shown from Scriptural usage that these 
expressions may be understood figuratively, we 
might here rest this part of our argument, but we 
have no necessity of limiting ourselves to a single 
passage however decisive. 

The Scriptures abound with this kind of ex- 
pression. Thus, " The seven good kine are seven 
years; and the seven good ears are seven years." 



84 ON THE EUCHARIST. 

(Gen. xli : 26.) " The ten horns are ten kings." 
(Ban. vii : 24.) "He that soweth the good seed is 
the son of man : the field is the world: the good 
seed are the children of the kingdom; but the 
tares are the children of the wicked one: the 
enemy that sowed them is the devil : the harvest is 
the end of the world ; and the reapers are the an- 
gels." (Matt, xiii : 37-39.) "They drank of that 
spiritual Rock that followed them : and that Eock 
was Christ." (I Cor. x : 4.) "These are the two 
covenants — For this Agar is Mount Sinai in Ara- 
bia." (Gral. iv : 24, 25.) "The seven stars are 
the angels of the seven churches: and the seven 
candle-sticks which thou sawest, are the seven 
churches." (Rev. i : 20.) 

These passages are cited by Dr. Wiseman, (p. 
1*75,) who groups them together as " strictly paral- 
lel one with another," and forming a class by 
themselves. It is hardly necessary to remark that 
these are quoted by Protestants as illustrative of 
the words of our Saviour. Dr. W. attempts to de- 
prive us of their use by undertaking to prove that 
they are not parallel to the eucharistic formula. 
He very clearly and satisfactorily shows that, to 
constitute a parallelism between two or more pass- 
ages of Scripture, it is not enough that the same 
word occurs in both, but that the same thing or ob- 
ject must be intended. In the application of this 
rule he urges that, in the above cited texts, the 
same tiling is intended, namely, the "explanation of 
a symbolical instruction" and adds: "But then it 
follows, likewise, that in order to thrust the words 
'this is my body,' into the same category, and treat 
them as parallel, we must show them also to contain 
the same tiling — the explanation of a symbolical 
instruction. Till this be done, there is no parallel- 
ism established." (Page 180.) 



THE WORDS OF INSTITUTION. 85 

Had tlie learned author given a true and impar- 
tial definition to his "res eadem," he might have 
saved himself the drudgery of racking his brain to 
extort from it an assemblage of quibbling distinc- 
tions without a difference and erudite unintelligibil- 
ities. For I suppose it requires more labor and 
pains-taking to invent artful subtleties, and study 
out biased definitions of things, than it does to 
give utterance to plain and candid verities. He 
should have defined the "same thing" in the quoted 
passages to be, Instruction by sijmbolical imagery, or 
metaphorical language; not, "the explanation of a 
symbolical instruction. ,, 

In his usual and sophistical manner, Dr. Wise- 
man argues their want of parallelism by " observ- 
ing, that in no one of the instanoes heaped together 
by our opponents, are we left to conjecture that an 
explanation of symbols is meant to be conveyed, 
but the context in each, expressly informs us of the 
circumstance. This is evident of the examples from 
Joseph, Daniel, and our Saviour, for they are 
clearly said to be giving or receiving interpreta- 
tions. St. Paul to the Galatians is equally careful 
to let us see the same ; for this is his entire sen- 
tence: ' Which things are an allegory ; for these 
are the two covenants.' After the expression, 'the 
rock was Christ,' he is careful to add, (v. 6,) ' now 
these things were done in figure of us ; ' and in the 
very sentence he tells us that i£ was a spiritual 
rock whereof he spoke. In fine, the instance from 
the Apocalypse is equally explicit : < Write down 
the things which thou hast seen . . . the mystery 
{allegory or symbol) of the seven stars . . . and 
seven golden candle-sticks. The seven stars are 
the angels of the seven churches.' And with pass- 
ages so explained by the very writers, it is pre- 
tended to compare the simple narrative, 'Jesus took 
bread, and blessed and brake, and gave to his dis- 
8 



86 ON THE EUCHARIST. 

ciples, and said, Take ye and eat ; this is my body ! ' " 
(pp. 180, 181.) 

Who ever read a more artful and carefully 
wrought sophism? From the tenor of these re- 
marks one might infer that the subsequent expla- 
nation of a symbol or metaphor destroys the fact 
of the symbol or metaphor. The interpretation 
which followed Daniel's vision of beasts, does not 
at all invalidate the fact, that the vision was sym- 
bolical ; nor did the explanation of the parable of 
the sower, make it less a parable. Facts are im- 
mortal. The expression, "The seven good kine 
are seven years, and the seven good ears are seven 
years," " the ten horns are ten kings/"' u The seed 
is the word of God/' are metaphors, and will for- 
ever remain such. In the number and resemblance 
of the points of similitude to the thing signified, 
they may vary, but they must ever remain essen- 
tially the same, that is, figures of speech. One 
metaphor may be so unusual and obscure, as to re- 
quire explanation, another may be so common and 
patent, as to be easily apprehended. 

The figurative use of the language, touching the 
passover, must have been so familiar to the disci- 
ples, as to prepare them in an eminent degree for 
symbolical instruction. The circumstances attend- 
ing the institution of the Eucharist, and the lan- 
guage employed, were such, as would naturally lead 
the disciples to apprehend the figurative words em- 
ployed. It is expressly recorded that Christ took 
bread, which, after giving thanks, he broke, and 
gave to his disciples. He did not take some strange 
and unusual thing and pronounce it to be his body, 
but in the presence, and sight of the twelve, he took 
bread. This identical bread he broke and gave to 
them: — this same bread they received into their 
hands, looked upon it, conveyed it to their mouths, 
and, tasting, ate it. Neither reason nor sense could 



THE WORDS OF INSTITUTION. 87 

have allowed them to understand our Lord other- 
wise than figuratively, when he said of that visible 
bread, This is my body. Under these circum- 
stances there existed no necessity for our Saviour 
to add, " These things are symbols or figures." Such 
an affirmation would have been a useless redun- 
dancy: nay, an undeserved reflection upon the 
intelligence and good sense of his chosen and be- 
loved disciples. These observations will receive 
still greater strength, from the remarks hereafter 
to be made on those other portions of our Lord's 
words> "This do in remembrance of me," and, "I 
will not henceforth drink of this fruit of the vine," 
&c. 

The principal objections advanced by Dr. Wise- 
man, as designed to prove a want of parallelism, 
in the several passages cited, to the words of insti- 
tution, have now been considered. Those that re- 
main are undeserving a serious refutation. 

To his repeated endeavors to range the doctrine 
of transubstantiation by the side of Christ's divin- 
ity, it is enough, at present, to reply, that the for- 
mer has no Scriptural authority, according to the 
opinion of several distinguished divines of his own 
church; whereas the latter is clearly and fully 
taught in the Word of God, as he himself more 
than intimates, when he says: "The texts whereby 
any dogma is proved, may be so clear, that they 
demonstrate it, at first sight, yet may consistently 
be submitted to the most rigid examination. For 
instance, is not the Divinity of our Lord so clear in 
the Scripture, that an unprejudiced mind is satis- 
fied with the simple recital of the texts relating to 
it?" (p. 43.) I apprehend the two doctrines have 
nothing in common, except a lodging-place in the 
mind of their common advocates. Finally, I have 
abundantly proved what was proposed to be done 
in the early part of this communication, namely, 



88 ON THE EUCHARIST. 

that from Scripture usage the words of the eucha- 
ristic institution may be understood figuratively. 

The necessity of such an interpretation will con- 
stitute the subject of my next. 

With sentiments of esteem allow me to subscribe 
myself as heretofore. 

Yours truly, 

E. 0. P. 



LETTER VI. 

NECESSITY OF THE FIGURATIVE INTERPRETATION OF THE 
WORDS OF INSTITUTION SHOWN. 

Dear Brother: — We have now arrived at the 
point in our discussion which I regard as the most 
important. It is not enough for us to show from 
Scripture usage, that the words of our Lord may be 
understood in a figurative sense ; in order to decide 
the matter it is necessary to prove, that to avoid 
great difficulties and plain contradictions, we are 
compelled to adopt this figurative interpretation. 
If I succeed in doing this, you will perceive that a 
point of no small importance is gained in our favor : 
for your church has defined, that these words teach 
the doctrine of transubstantiation. Indeed,, the 
Council of Trent declares it to be " a most heinous 
crime, that they should be turned by certain con- 
tentious and wicked men into pretended and imag- 
inary figures, to the denial of the truth of the flesh 
and blood of Christ." 1 And Dr. Wiseman says: 
" We entrench ourselves behind the strong power 
of our Saviour's words, and calmly remain there, 
till driven from our position." (p. 168.) These 
words understood literally, are, therefore, regarded 
by your church, as the strong defence of the doc- 
trine in question. Safe, however, as you may feel 
behind this your fancied "strong power of our 
Saviour's words," I shall venture to approach, and 
prove the strength of your position by wielding a 
few of those weapons which the God of battles has 

1 Sess xiii, cap. 1, De Reali Praesentia Domini nostri, etc. 
8* 



90 ON THE EUCHARIST. 

put into the hands of his militant followers, pre- 
mising a few general propositions, as forming a 
sort of groundwork of much that may follow. 

1. The Being whom we call God, is an uncaused, 
unonginated, and, by consequence, eternal exist- 
ence ; all his attributes, both those called natural, 
and moral, are likewise eternal, infinitely perfect, 
and therefore unchangeable. 

2. It necessarily follows from his eternal and 
immutable perfections, that there are some things 
which are morally, and, therefore, naturally impos- 
sible to be done by God ; for we cannot supjDose 
that his omnipotence can consistently be exerted to 
do what is repugnant to his eternal and infinite 
holiness; because, if it could, he might be at vari- 
ance with himself, and, therefore, imperfect. 

Hence, God cannot lie ; which necessarily implies, 
that He cannot make that which is essentially and 
eternally wrong, to be essentially and eternally 
right; He cannot contradict himself, either in his 
Word, or his Works ; He cannot make that which 
is already made, for that would imply that it was 
not made, though it was made ; He cannot make 
things which are essentially different the one from 
the other, to be essentially the same ; He cannot 
make a part of a thing equal to its whole, at one 
and the same time, otherwise he might operate 
contradictions, which is impossible and absurd. 

3. More particularly : A revelation for the good 
of his creature, man, proceeding from this infinitely 
good and perfect Being, must be perfectly consistent 
with all his attributes, adapted to the nature and 
wants of the being to be benefited, and consistent 
in all its parts. 

Having stated these fundamental truths, I pro- 
ceed to notice the difficulties which forbid the literal 
interpretation of our Lord's words, at the institu- 
tion of the Eucharist. And this I will endeavor to 



THE WORDS OF INSTITUTION. 91 

do, with special reference to the doctrine of transub- 
stantiation in general, and to those consequences 
and teaching, in particular, which necessarily or 
constructively result from it. For I regard this 
doctrine and its appendants, as standing or falling 
with the literal interpretation of the words of in- 
stitution, or its opposite. 

1. The words themselves do not indicate any 
change whatever. They are declarative of what 
already exists, but not effective of what is not. We 
might as well argue from the expressions, "It is 
the Lord's passover," "the ten horns are ten kings," 
that some change was effected by virtue of them, 
as to affirm, that by the words, " this is my body," 
a change of substance is effected. But no one con- 
tends, that the pronunciation of the former op- 
erated any change of substance ; so we affirm, that 
the enunciation of the latter, is not operative of 
any change whatever. Had our Lord intended by 
words to transubstantiate the bread in his hands 
into his own body,, it is reasonable to suppose, that 
he would have said, "Let this become my body," 
or some other equivalent words. From an, expres- 
sion of this kind, we might argue for some kind of 
change. When God displays his omnipotent en- 
ergy through the medium of words, His language 
is indicative of something effected. Thus he says: 
"Let light be," "Lazarus, come forth," " Tabitha, 
arise," and the like. 

If words simply declarative of a fact, like those of 
our Lord, may be supposed to indicate a new creation, 
then I see no reason, so far as the mere words are 
concerned, against supposing a change, or new crea- 
tion of substance, wrought in virtue of the words of 
the paschal institution, and the numerous other 
passages already cited in the connection ; which is 
not true. Nay, might we not bring into the cate- 
gory those words of the beloved disciple, when giv- 



92 ON THE EUCHARIST. " 

ing expression to the unerring spirit within him, 
In the beginning was the Word, and argue thence 
the creation of the second person in the Trinity ? 

It is doubtless true, that Christ's whole act, in 
taking bread, blessing, breaking and distributing, 
did constitute the consecration of the bread, or 
setting it apart for sacred use, and* that the words, 
This is my body, are to be considered as expressive 
of what was already effected. I can therefore see 
no reason for the teaching of your church, when 
she declares, that Christ, in virtue of these words 
of consecration, transubstantiated the bread and 
wine into his own body and blood. 

Moreover, admitting for argument's sake, that 
the transubstantiation is effected by the words under 
consideration, it will thence follow that the change 
or conversion must follow their use; for all effects 
must of necessity follow their causes. Now, how- 
ever closely this conversion may follow, it is certain 
that it cannot exist prior to its cause, that is, before 
the utterance of all the causative words. Hence, 
our Saviour affirmed the eucharistic elements to be 
his body and blood, before they were his body and 
blood. Your doctrine therefore gives the lie to our 
Divine Master, and must therefore be rejected, as 
false and impossible. 

Do you reply, that the present is sometimes put 
for the future by the inspired writers, when the 
thing spoken of is near or certain? (See John, 
v : 25 ; xii : 23, 31 ; xvii : 4, 11, 12 ; Isa. liii : 3-10.) 
Such I admit to be a frequent usage when acts or 
events are the subjects of prophetic affirmation, but 
not when the esse of things real is spoken of. 
When God affirms of any substantial existence that 
it is this or that, he means that it is such when he 
speaks, and not that it will aftemvard be such. 

2. The difficulty of the literal interpretation is 
increased, by the addition of the words, ivhich is 



THE WORDS OF INSTITUTION. 93 

given, and which is shed, to those just considered. 
According to this exposition of his language, the 
real human body of Christ was actually given as a 
sacrifice, and his blood shed, when he instituted 
this sacrament ; but this is contrary to the history 
given by the Evangelists, and the repeated declara- 
tion of the Apostles. The same sacred historians 
that record the Saviour's own predicted delivery, 
(Matt, xx : 19, and Mark x: 33,) put this delivery 
subsequent to the eucharistic institution. (Matt, 
xxvii : 2, and Mark, xv : 1.) This delivery up to the 
Gentiles Peter associates with his crucifixion, (Acts 
ii : 23.) when he " bore our sins in his own body on 
the tree." (I Pet. ii: 24.) And the Apostle Paul 
teaches, that he " was delivered for our offencos ; " 
(Kom. iv: 25;) "for when we were yet without 
strength, in due time Christ died for the ungodly/' 
(v: 6; viii: 32,) and thereby offered, through the 
eternal Spirit, a sacrifice, once for all, to God for us. 
(Heb. vii: 27; ix: 14, 27; x: 10.) 

When therefore our Saviour says, " This is my body 
which is given for you," and, " This is my blood which 
is shed for you," he is to be understood as saying: 
" This is my body which is offered for you upon the 
cross," and, "This is my blood which is there poured 
out for the world." But his real body was not then 
offered, nor was his real blood then shed, when he 
uttered these words. It follows hence that what he 
called his body was not his real and human body, 
but only a symbolical representation of it. This 
exposition of our Lord's words removes those diffi- 
culties which stand in the way of the literal inter- 
pretation ; for it is easy to understand, how the 
bread broken, and wine poured out, were a symbol 
of the crucified body and shed blood of Christ. The 
evident meaning of his words may be thus briefly 
paraphrased : " This bread now given you, to be 
distributed amongst yourselves, is a symbol of my 



94 ON THE EUCHAKIST. 

body which is about to be given, as a sacrifice for 
you, upon the cross ; and this cup poured out is a 
symbol of my blood as being shed for you, for the 
remission of sins." So certain and present was the 
whole tragedy in the mind of the divine Saviour, 
that he speaks of the transaction as already taking 
place, whilst representing it by the symbols of bread 
and wine. So in another place, to which reference 
has been made, he speaks of having finished his 
work, and being no longer in the world, (John, xvii: 
4, 11,) even before his crucifixion and ascent to 
heaven. Our exposition, therefore, harmonizes with 
Scripture usage, and agrees with the matter of fact 
in the case, but yours is repugnant to both ; for 
having affirmed the literal explanation to be the 
meaning of our Lord, when he says, This is my 
body, you cannot ascribe to the words, which is given 
or broken a future signification ; because, if what he 
cailed his body were his real body, it was then 
already broken and given ; which, as just shown, 
was not the fact. 

3. At the institution of the Eucharist, Christ is 
represented by the first two Evangelists, Matthew 
and Mark, as saying of what was contained in the 
cup subsequently to its consecration, that he would 
no more drink of that fruit of the vine until that 
day that he should drink it new with them in the 
kingdom of God. That same substance which he 
had before called his blood, he afterward denomi- 
nated the fruit, or product of the vine. If the 
words, This is my blood, are interpreted literally, it 
is difficult to account for his calling that real blood 
of his the fruit of the vine. 

It is sheer sophistry to undertake to do away 
the force of these considerations, by affirming, that 
Christ spoke these words with reference to the 
nature of the wine prior to its consecration, because 
St. Luke arranges a like expression before the 



THE WORDS OF INSTITUTION. 95 

words of benediction. In addition to the fact that 
Matthew and Mark place them after the words of 
consecration, so-called, you will observe that when 
Christ spoke of the fruit of the vine, he spoke of 
what was drank, which was no other than the 
liquid contained in the cup, after its consecration 
to the use of this holy sacrament. If then, what 
was drank by the twelve disciples, was the fruit of 
the vine, it could not, at the same time, have been 
human blood ; for they are not one and the same 
thing, either in their substance, or sensible proper- 
ties. But how perfectly does this expression of our 
Lord agree with the Protestant view, which re- 
gards the elements, not as the real, but symbolical 
body and blood of Christ. 

4. The disciples were commanded to celebrate 
this institution of their Lord, in remembrance of 
him. Now memory never has respect to what is 
either present or future, but always refers to what 
is past. If the divine speaker used language in its 
ordinary acceptation, he could have meant no more 
in this injunction, than to command the Apostles, 
and with them the whole church, to celebrate this 
sacrament as a means of calling to mind, after- 
ward, certain truths or facts of which they had be- 
fore a knowledge, such as his incarnation and 
death as an atoning sacrifice upon the cross. But 
the literal interpretation of this text, makes Christ 
say: Do this, not as a remembrance of my incar- 
nation and death simply, but also, as actually 
making a repeated incarnation and perpetual sacri- 
fice of me; which is most evidently inconsistent 
with the express words of our Lord. Your church 
teaches, that Christ entire, embracing his body, 
soul and divine substance, is really and substanti- 
ally present in the Eucharist. According to this 
doctrine how can this sacrament be observed in 
remembrance of Christ, he being really and sub- 



96 ON THE EUCHARIST. 

stantially present ? It is impossible to do so. The 
literal interpretation of the words of institution, I 
therefore conclude, to be quite irreconcilable with 
the proper signification of this term employed by 
the Saviour ; and, by consequence, such exposition 
must be false. 

In illustration, suppose your friends should 
gather about your person and perform certain 
kindly acts, and being interrogated by a friendly 
visitor about the significance of those ceremonies, 
they should reply, "we are doing this in remem- 
brance of our friend." 

Do you suppose that your guest would under- 
stand what was meant by such a reply ? Would 
you not even correct your friends for perverting the 
use of common and plain language? 

We have before remarked, that the passover 
under the Jewish, dispensation, was to be observed, 
as a memorial of the Lord's passing by the chil- 
dren of Israel; but no Jew ever supposed that 
anniversary to be the same day, in which they 
were preserved from the destructive plague. Why 
then should the Christian suppose the consecrated 
bread to be really Christ's body, when he expressly 
commands this sacrament to be observed in re- 
membrance of himself? 

5. From the literal interpretation of Christ's 
words, we are compelled to admit the corruptibility 
of his real and true body. This is a matter of fact 
so undeniable, and cognizable by any man's senses, 
that your church does not attempt to conceal it, 
but, on the contrary, even makes provision how to 
dispose of it when corrupted. The Roman Missal 
teaches : " If the Priest vomit the Eucharist, if the 
species appear entire, they are reverently to be 
taken, unless nausea be produced ; in this case the 
consecrated species are to be carefully separated 
and laid aside in some holy place until they are 



THE WORDS OF INSTITUTION. 97 

corrupted, and afterward cast into the sacristy. 
But if the species do not appear, [distinguishable 
from the other vomited matter] the vomit must be 
burned, and the ashes cast into the sacristy." l 
This is the language which Kome puts forth to the 
world, and which necessarily follows her literal 
exposition of the words of institution. How does 
it agree with the Holy Scriptures? 

David says: "Therefore my heart is glad, and 
my glory rejoiceth; my flesh also shall rest in 
hope. For thou wilt not leave my soul in hell ; 

NEITHER WILT THOU SUFFER THINE HOLY ONE TO SEE 

corruption." (Psal. xvi, 10.) 

At the very opening of the new dispensation, 
upon the day of Pentecost, 'Peter quotes this pass- 
age from David and observes, that he " being a 
prophet, and knowing that God had sworn with 
an oath to him, that of the fruit of his loins, ac- 
cording to the flesh, he would raise up Christ to 
sit on his throne ; he seeing this before, spake of 
the resurrection of Christ, that his soul was not left 
in hell, neither did his flesh see corruption." 
(Acts, ii: 30, 31.) 

Observe, It was the flesh, of Christ which pro- 
ceeded from the loins of the patriach David that 
saw NO corruption ; but that body of Christ in the 
Eucharist continually sees corruption, in the pro- 
cess of human digestion and other animal processes, 
as also according to the ordinary laws of decompo- 
sition, recognized by your Missal. It follows hence, 
that what Christ called his body at the institution 

i Si sacerdos evomet eucharistiam, si species integrae ap- 
pareant reverentur sumantur, nisi nausea fiat; tunc enim 
species consecratae caute separentur, et in aliquo loco sacro 
reponantur donee corrumpantur, et postea in sacrarium 
projiciantur; quod si species non appareant, comburatur 
vomitus, et cinires in sacrarium inittantur. De Defectibus 
in Missa. Art. x, No. 14. 

9 



98 ON THE EUCHARIST. 

of the Eucharist, was not his real and substantial 
body, that body which proceeded from the loins of 
David, and was born of the Virgin Mary ; but it 
was his symbolical body. For he has no body 
holding a medium place between his human and 
sacramental body. Your literal interpretation ne- 
cessarily leads to consequences perfectly contradic- 
tory to plain explicit Scripture, and must therefore 
be false. 

6. Whilst upon the earth, our divine Lord very 
plainly taught the doctrine of his omnipresence, 
when he promised his disciples, that " where two 
or three are gathered together in my name, there 
am I in the midst of them:" (Matt, xviii : 20;) 
"and lo, I am with you always, even unto the end 
of the world." This must be understood of his di- 
vine and spiritual presence ; for, at another time, 
when speaking with reference to his human body, 
he says to the Jews: "Ye shall seek me and shall 
not find me." (John, vii : 34.) He afterward re- 
peats the same to his disciples, (xiii : 33.) Again 
he says: "Yet a little while and the world seeth 
me no more." (xiv : 19.) "For the poor ye always 
have with you, but me ye have not always." (xii : 
8, Matt, xx vi : 11, and Mark, xiv : 7.) 

The comment of St. Augustine on these last 
words, is worthy of notice. " He speaks," says he, 
"of the presence of his body; ye shall have me 
according to my providence, according to my ma- 
jesty and invisible grace; but according to the 
flesh which the Word of God assumed, according 
to that which was born of the Virgin Mary, ye shall 
not have me; therefore because he conversed with 
his disciples forty days, he is ascended up into 
heaven, and is not here."' A 

But the doctrine of trans ubstantiation most un- 
qualifiedly contradicts these plain words of our 

A Aug. Tract. L, in Joan. tcm. ix, p. 152. 



THE WORDS OF INSTITUTION. 99 

Lord, since it makes his real body and blood 
present in the Eucharist, whenever the words of 
consecration are canonically pronounced. Again, 
therefore, we affirm your literal interpretation to 
be false. 

Moreover, from these same Scriptures, we argue 
the non-multipresence of Christ's natural body. Our 
Saviour evidently teaches, that he is ever divinely 
present in the midst of his faithful ones, though 
his body be absent from the world ; from which we 
conclude, that there is no such inseparable and ne- 
cessary union between his divine and human na- 
tures, that the former cannot operate without the 
presence of the latter. This truth seems to me 
perfectly established by the words of Christ under 
consideration, which, at the same time, totally de- 
stroy your doctrine of concomitance. If then Christ 
is perpetually and divinely present with his Church 
on earth, but his body is perpetually absent from 
us in heaven, we may fairly infer, in the absence of 
contrary testimony, that his body is local in heaven 
and never elsewhere present 

Again, if we admit that Christ's natural body 
may be present in more places than one, at the 
same moment, then we must allow that it may be 
in a thousand, and consequently that it may be 
omnipresent and divine. Thus directly does the 
doctine of transubstantiation lead to the heresy of 
the ancient Eutychians, who taught that the human 
nature of Christ was destroyed by being taken up, 
or absorbed into his divine substance when he as- 
cended. This error, however, was opposed by the 
orthodox Fathers, and condemned by the Council 
of Chalcedon, which defined, that "the differences 
of the two natures in Christ were not destroyed by 
the union ; but that their properties were preserved 
distinct, and concur to one person." B 

B Concil. Chalcedon., Act. v, A.. D. 451. 



100 ON THE EUCHARIST. 

Before you undertake, as some have done, to 
prove the multipresence of Christ's human hody 
from the exclamation of a dying Stephen: "Be- 
hold ; I seethe heavens opened, and the Son of man 
standing on the right hand of God;" (Acts, vii : 
56 ;) you ought to be able to locate heaven, and 
make it appear, that Christ was not then in that 
place when Stephen saw him. This may be a se- 
vere task, like making brick without straw, but you 
must do it before you can prove, by this passage, 
the ubiquity of Christ's human body, which neces- 
sarily results from that favorite doctrine of a cor- 
poreal presence in the Eucharist. 

"7. Your church teaches that the eucharistic offer- 
ing, denominated the Sacrifice of the Mass, "is the 
sacrifice which was figuratively represented by the 
various sacrifices offered in the times of nature, and 
of the law ; since it includes every good which was 
signified by them, and is the consummation and 
perfection of them all." * " For the sacrifice which 
is now offered by the ministry of the priests, is one 
and the same as that which Christ then offered on 
the cross, only the mode of offering is different." 2 
"And, Whoever shall affirm, that a true and proper 
sacrifice is not offered to God in the mass, or that 
the offering is nothing else than giving Christ to 
us, to eat: let him be accursed." 3 

iHaec denique ilia est, quae per varias sacrificiorum Natu- 
rae, et legis tempore, similitudinem figurabatur, utpote quae 
bona omnia per ilia significata, velut illorum omnium con- 
summatio et perfectio complectitur. Concl. Trident, Sess. 
xxii. cap. 1. 

2 Una enim eademque est hostia, idemque nunc offerens 
saeerdotum ministerio, qui scripsum tunc in cruce obtulit, sola 
offerendi ratione diversa. Idem, cap. 2. 

3 Si quis dixerit, in Missa non offerri Deo verum et propri- 
um sacrificium, ant quod offerri non sit aliud, quam nobis 
Christum ad manducandum dari ; Anathema sit. Sess. xxii, 
De Sacrificio Misbse, Can. i. 



THE WORDS OF INSTITUTION. 101 

According to this the sacrifice of Calvary is 
repeatedly and continuously offered, and that too, 
" not only for the sins, punishments, satisfactions, 
and other necessities of living believers, but also for 
the dead in Christ, who are not yet thoroughly 
purified." 1 By the a dead in Christ," is meant 
those detained in purgatory, not yet being fully 
purged. 

Let us compare this doctrine with the inspired 
word of God. St. Paul says, that Christ our high 
priest "needeth not daily, as those high priests, 
[under the law] to offer up sacrifice, first for his 
own sins, and then for the people's ; for this he did 
once, when he offered up himself." (Heb. vii: 27.) 
" Neither by the blood of goats and calves, but by 
his own blood, he entered in once into the holy 
place, having obtained eternal redemption for us." 
" For Christ is not entered into the holy places 
made with hands, which are the figures of the 
true ; but into heaven itself, now to appear in the 
presence of Grod for us: nor yet that he should 
offer himself, often, as the high priest entereth into 
the holy place every year with the blood of others ; 
for then must he often have suffered since the foun- 
dation of the world ; but now once, in the end of the 
world, hath he appeared to put away sin by the 
sacrifice of himself. And as it is appointed unto 
men once to die, but after this the judgment: so 
Christ was once offered to bear the sins of many ; 
and unto them that look for him shall he appear 
the second time, without sin, unto salvation." (Heb. 
ix: 12, 24-28.) And "We are sanctified through 
the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for 
all." "For by one offering he hath perfected for 

1 Quare non solum pro fidelium virorum peccatis, pcernis, 
satisfactionibua et aliis necessitatibus, sed et pro defunctis in 
Christo, nondum ad plenum purgatis, rite juxta Apostolorum 
traditionem, offertur. Ubi Sup. Cit. cap. 2. 
9* 



102 ON THE EUCHARIST. 

ever them that are sanctified. (ch. x: 10, 14.) 
From which we are clearly taught the following 
truths : 

1. Christ needs not to offer up sacrifice for sin 
daily, or continuously, as the high priests did 
under the law. 

2. When he offered himself upon the cross, that 
one sacrifice was the only proper sacrifice ever 
made, or that ever will be made for sin. 

3. No other sacrifice is required for the putting 
away of sin, because by this he has "obtained eter- 
nal redemption for us/' and " perfected forever them 
that are sanctified." 

The Apostle makes it just as certain that Christ 
has been offered but once, as it is that it is appointed 
unto men to die once, and to be judged once. Your 
doctrine of the mass is, therefore, perfectly contra- 
dictory to that taught by an inspired Apostle, and, 
by consequence, false. 

Again, more particularly, the sacred penmen 
concur in teaching that no true and proper sacrifice 
for sins was ever made before Christ offered him- 
self upon the cross. By a true and proper sacrifice 
is meant, a full and perfect sacrifice, such as God 
is pleased to accept as an atonement for the sins of 
men. But the imperfection of the Jewish sacrifices 
is evident from the following: "Hath the Lord as 
great delight in burnt offerings and sacrifices, as 
in obeying the voice of the Lord? Behold, to obey 
is better than sacrifice, and to hearken than the fat 
of rams." (I Sam. xv: 22, compare Matt, ix: 13, 
andxii: 7.) Sacrifice and offering thou didst not 
desire . . . burnt-offering and sin-offering hast thou 
not required." (Psal. xl: 6, compare li: 16, and 
Hoseavi: 6.) "Be it known unto you therefore, 
men and brethren, that through this man is preached 
unto you the forgiveness of sins ; and by him all 
that believe are justified from all things, from 



THE WORDS OF INSTITUTION. 103 

winch they could not be justified by the law of 
Moses." (Acts, xiii: 38, 39.) "For by the law is 
the knowledge of sin, [but not a propitiation for it.] 
But now the righteousness of God without the law 
is manifested, being witnessed [or testified to] by 
the [sacrifices of the] law and [the predictions of] 
the prophets. Even the righteousness of God, 
which is by faith of Jesus Christ unto all, and upon 
all them that believe." "Being justified freely by 
his grace, through the redemption that is in Christ 
Jesus: Whom God hath set forth to be a propi- 
tiation through faith in his blood, to declare his 
righteousness for the remission of sins that are 
past." (Rom. iii: 20-25.) 

"In whom we have redemption through his 
blood, even the forgiveness of sins. For it pleased 
the Father that in him should all fullness dwell ; 
and, having made peace through the blood of his 
cross, by him to reconcile all things unto him- 
self." (Colos. i: 14, 19, 20; compare Ephes. ii: 
13-16.) "And every priest standeth daily minister- 
ing and offering oftentimes the same sacrifices, 
which can never take away sins ; but this man, 
after he had offered one sacrifice for sins, forever 
sat down on the right hand of God." . . . "Now, 
where remission of these is, there is no more offer- 
ing for sin." (Heb. x: 11, 12, 18.) "Knowing that 
Christ being raised from the dead, dieth no more ; 
death hath no more dominion over him. For in 
that he died, he died unto [for] sin once." (Rom. 
vi: 9, 10.) "For Christ also hath once suffered for 
sins, the just for the unjust, that he might bring us 
to God, being put to death in the flesh, but quick- 
ened by the Spirit." (I Pet. iii: 18.) 

It is therefore plain that no true and proper sa- 
crifice for sin was made before Christ, " through the 
blood of his cross," offered that one sacrifice for 



104 ON THE EUCHARIST. 

sins when " he suffered, the just for the unjust/' by 
"being put to death in the flesh." 

But the Eucharist was instituted before Christ's 
death ; it could not therefore have been a real and 
propitiatory sacrifice for sin ; hence your sacrifice 
of the Mass, which is confessedly but a repetition 
of that sacrament which Christ celebrated before his 
death, cannot be a true, proper and propitiatory 
sacrifice for the sins of the living and the dead, as 
you pretend. Your literal interpretation of our 
Saviour's words, therefore, which gives rise to the 
doctrine of the Mass, must be false. 

The Council of Trent holds the following lan- 
guage: "And since the same Christ who once 
offered himself by his blood on the altar of the cross, 
is contained in this divine sacrifice which is cele- 
brated in the Mass, and offered without blood, the 
holy council teaches that this sacrifice is really pro- 
pitiatory, and made by Christ himself. . . . And 
the fruits of that bloody oblation are plentifully 
enjoyed by means of this unbloody one." 1 And 
this unbloody sacrifice is said to be properly offered 
for the sins, punishments, satisfactions, and other 
necessities of the living and the dead. 

In this remarkable article we are told, that "the 
same Christ, who once offered himself by his blood 
on the altar of the cross, is contained in this divine, 
propitiatory, and bloodless sacrifice of the Mass ; 
that it is the same sacrifice that was offered upon 
the cross." It is the same sacrifice offered in a dif- 
ferent manner only, and yet it is not the same, for 
the former was bloody, but the latter unbloody! It 
is said to be propitiatory, though bloodless, whereas 
the Holy Scriptures teach that " without shedding 
of blood there is no remission ! " Christ is said to 



1 Cnjus quidem oblationis (cruentse inquam) frnctus per 
hare incruentam uberrimae percipiuntur. Sess. xxii, cap. 2. 



THE WORDS OF INSTITUTION. 105 

offer this sacrifice of the Mass himself, whereas the 
Apostle declares that " after he had offered one sa- 
crifice for sins, he forever sat down on the right hand 
of God! " 

May the God of mercy and truth open the eyes 
of your Mass-worshipers, discover to them the 
folly of arraying the human against, the divine 
authority, and give them repentance unto life. 

8. In order that the believers of transubstantia- 
tion be not naturally led to suppose this sacrament 
to contain nothing more than bread and wine, your 
church requires their minds to be withdrawn, as 
much as possible, from subjection to the senses, and 
excited to the contemplation of the stupendous 
power of God. But it has pleased God at divers 
times, to reveal his will to man, and, in so doing, to 
confirm the truth of his revelation by miracles. 
These supernatural proofs of the Divine Being, were 
so made, as to be cognizable by the bodily senses 
of those that witnessed them. He changes the rod 
of Aaron into a serpent, divides the waters of the 
Red Sea and of Jordan, raises the dead, feeds mul- 
titudes with a few loaves and small fishes, turns 
water into wine, and the like. For our knowledge 
of these divine pooofs of the truth of God's word, 
we are indebted to the testimony of the senses of 
those that witnessed them ; and our knowledge is 
certain, in proportion to the certainty and infalli- 
bility of the evidence of their senses. But God has 
not selected an insufficient and uncertain medium, 
through which to communicate a knowledge of his 
will to the world ; for the testimony of the senses 
is infallible. 

In this light the inspired writers themselves re- 
garded the evidence of the senses, as we learn from 
the following : " Forasmuch as many have taken 
in hand to set forth in order a declaration of those 
things which are most surely believed amongst us, 



106 ON THE EUCHARIST. 

even as they delivered them unto us, who were eye- 
witnesses and ministers of the word ; it seemed 
good to me also, having had perfect understanding 
of all things from the very first, to write unto thee 
in order, most excellent Theophilus, that thou 
mightest know the certainty of those things, 
wherein thou hast been instructed." (Luke, i: 
1-4.) " That which was from the beginning, which 
we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, 
which we have looked upon, and our hands have 
handled of the Word of life ; that which we have 
seen and heard declare we unto you, that you also 
may have fellowship with us. And these things 
write we unto you that your joy may be full." 
(IJohn, i: 1,3,4.) 

From these passages it appears, that the things 
seen and heard, were most surely believed by the 
Evangelists and primitive Christians. Thomas was 
cured of his unbelief by seeing and feeling, and so 
might every Komanist in the world, if he would 
submit, like the first Christians, to the indubitable 
evidence of his own natural senses. And now 
allow me to inquire in the language of Archbishop 
Tillotson, "Whether it be reasonable to imagine 
that God should make that a part of the Christian 
religion, which shakes the main external evidence 
and confirmation of the whole, I mean the miracles 
which were wrought by our Saviour and his Apos- 
tles, the assurance whereof did at first depend upon 
the certainty of sense. For if the senses of those 
who saw them were or could be deceived, then 
there might have been no miracles wrought, and 
consequently it may be justly doubted, whether 
that kind of confirmation which God hath given to 
the Christian religion would be strong enough to 
prove it; for, supposing transubstantiation to have 
been a part of it, every man would have had as 
great evidence that it was false as that the Chris- 
tian religion is true. 



THE WORDS Of institution. 107 

" Of all the doctrines in the world, this of transub- 
stantiation is peculiarly incapable of being proved 
by a miracle. For if a miracle were wrought for 
the proof of it, the very same assurance that any 
one could have of the truth of the miracle, he hath 
of the falsehood of this doctrine : that is, the clear 
evidence of his senses. For that there is a miracle 
wrought to prove that %ohot he sees in the sacrament 
is not bread, but the body of Christ, there is only the 
evidence of sense, and there is the same evidence 
to prove that what he sees in the sacrament is not 
the body of Christ, but bread. So that here would 
arise a new controversy, whether a man should 
rather believe his senses giving testimony against 
the doctrine of transubstantiation, or bearing wit- 
ness to a miracle wrought to confirm that doctrine ; 
there being the very same evidence against the 
truth of the doctrine which there is for the truth of 
the miracle. And then the argument for the doc- 
trine and the objection against it would balance one 
another, and consequently transubstantiation is not 
to be proved by miracles, because that would be to 
prove to a man by something that he sees that he doth 
not see what he sees. And if there were no other 
evidence that transubstantiation is no part of the 
Christian religion, this would be sufficient, that 
what proves the one doth as much overthrow the 
other ; and that miracles which are certainly the 
best and highest external proof of Christianity, 
are the worst proof in the world of transubstantia- 
tion, unless a man can renounce his senses at the 
same time that he relies upon them, for a man can- 
not believe a miracle without relying on his senses, 
nor transubtantiation without renouncing them. 
So that never were any two things so ill coupled 
together as the doctrine of Christianity and of 
transubstantiation, because they draw several ways 
and are ready to strangle one another; for the 



108 ON THE EUCHARIST. 

main external evidence of the doctrine of Christ, 
which is miracles, is resolved into the certainty of 
sense, but this evidence is clear, and point-blank 
against transubstantiation." x 

9. " Come now, and let us reason together, saith 
the Lord.'*' It is an argument of no small weight 
in favor of the truth and divine origin of our holy 
religion, that it is perfectly adapted to the physical, 
intellectual, and moral nature of man. Its holy 
requisitions are exactly suited to the constitution 
and laws of the human mind. Nothing short of 
omniscience could have devised, and nothing but 
omnipotence could have carried into effect, such a 
harmonious exhibition of creative power and wis- 
dom, as we find displayed in the economy of our 
whole man, and his redemption from sin. The 
Author of our being, and of the Christian religion, 
is that same God whose "way is perfect/' and "all 
whose works are done in truth." He cannot deny 
himself; his very nature requires him to act with 
perfect consistency in whatever his goodness moves 
him to do. He who adapted the eye to the light 
and the ear to sound, has, with, at least, equal wis- 
dom and benevolence, addressed his revealed word 
to the understanding of his rational creatures. 
Throughout the Bible man is regarded as a being of 
reason ; and the Author of this sacred book appears 
constantly to have had in mind this least impaired 
and noblest faculty of his intellectual creatures. 
True it is, however, that God, in his Word, has re- 
vealed to us truths, whose mode of existence and 
ultimate nature far transcend the comprehension of 
finite intelligences ; though the fact of their exist- 
ence is not repugnant to natural reason. For in- 
stance, we are taught that in the one divine nature, 
Jehovah, there are three persons, co-equal and co- 

i Tillotson ou Transub. Cited by Ousley, pp. 190-5. 



THE WORDS OP INSTITUTION. 109 

eternal, yet not three and one in the same sense, 
hence not involving any contradiction, and there- 
fore not contrary to reason though ahove it. 

It being true, therefore, that God's revelation to 
man is addressed to him as an intelligent being, 
and adapted to his noblest faculty, reason, it must 
follow that if any doctrine be proposed for our belief 
as the Word of God which is repugnant to the very 
nature of this faculty, it is to be rejected as spu- 
rious and false. 

In this light I view the doctrine of tran substan- 
tiation ; for it involves the following impossibilities: 
that the natural qualities of bread and wine sub- 
sist without their subjects ; that the whole of a ma- 
terial thing is no greater than one of its parts when 
a separation is made ; that what is already made 
and perpetually remains so can be repeatedly made 
again ; that our Lord gave himself with his own 
hands to his disciples to be eaten and drunken, still 
keeping himself to himself; and, that his same 
numerical and material body may be in a thousand 
different places at the same time, and exist under 
as many different forms. All which is impossible 
even to God ; for he cannot do what he wills not to 
do ; and he will not work natural contradictions ; 
for this would be to act contrary to himself, con- 
trary to the fixed and immutable principles of Him 
who cannot lie. 

10. It is in vain, therefore, for the advocates of 
this doctrine, to resort to the omnipotence of God, 
in order to prove its possibility ^ and screen it from 
the unpalatable charge of impossible, and absurd. 
This was the method employed by the ancient her- 
etics, who could not screen their errors, except by 
taking refuge under the broad cover of almighty 
power. And the reply given to them by the more 
orthodox Fathers of the church, may now be made, 
with great propriety, to the defenders of transub- 
10 



110 ON THE EUCHARIST. 

stautiation, a doctrine not excelled, in unreasona- 
bleness, by the most extravagant reveries of ancient 
heresy. Indeed, the uu likeness of this dogma to 
anything else within the range of human know- 
ledge, is clearly perceived and felt by those who at- 
tempt to shelter it from its confessedly apparent 
absurdities, by pretending the broad shield of God's 
omnipotence. Thus Paschasius Eatbert, the father 
of transubstantiation, in the very commencement 
of the first treatise ever written in defence of this 
doctrine, argues the omnipotence of God in its proof, 
in the following manner : " Since without the power 
of God nothing exists, therefore all things are pos- 
sible [to him.] For God the maker of all things 
has not so ordained the nature of things, that he 
should take from them his own volition: because 
every creature subsists by the same will and power 
from which it has its cause, not only that it should 
subsist as something, but also that it should so 
exist as the very will of God decrees, which is the 
cause of all creatures. In no other manner does 
any creature subsist, except by the will of Him from 
whom flows its entire being ; and therefore as often 
as the nature of the creature is changed, increased, 
or subtracted, it is not diverted from that Being in 
whom it exists ; because it so is, and is made as he 
in whom it exists, decrees. It appears therefore 
that nothing is possible without, or contrary to the 
will of God, but all things wholly obey him. And 
for this cause let no one be moved in regard to this 
body and blood of Christ, that it is, in a mystery, 
true flesh and true blood, whilst he who created so 
willed. For all -things whatsoever he hath willed, 
he hath done, both in heaven and in earth. And 
because he hath willed, although the figure of 
bread and wine are here, we are to believe that 
they are no other than the flesh and blood of Christ 
after consecration. Whence the Truth himself said 



THE WORDS OF INSTITUTION. Ill 

to the disciples: This is my flesh for the life of the 
world. And though I speak wonderfully it is 
plainly no other than what was born of Mary, suf- 
fered upon the cross, and rose again from the 
sepulchre. This, I say, is that very flesh which 
even to this day is offered for the life of the world 
and therefore it is Christ's." c 

Passing by the savor of fatalism in this passage, 
it needs no extraordinary skill in the art of reason- 
ing, to detect the fallacy of Paschasius' pretended 
argument. It is a simple begging of the question. 
For he assumes as true the very point to be proved ; 
namely, that it is the will of God to change the 
bread and wine into the real body and blood of 
Christ. The proof for God's will in any operation, 
either real or supposed, must be sought in his 
revealed word, or deduced from his works so inter- 
preted as not to conflict with other known truths, 
established principles, or certain phenomena. But 
we are not left to conjecture whether that doctrine 
be true and according to God's will, which contra- 
dicts plain Scripture, saps the foundations of Christi- 
anity, by rejecting the infallible testimony of the 
senses, sets reason at defiance, and challenges om- 
nipotence to measure the lists with eternal truth 
and divine propriety. 

In imitation of their illustrious hero, the modern 
champions of this doctrine still hold out this an- 
cient shield of their faith, time-worn, and pierced a 
thousand times, by the burning darts of truth. 

"To creatures deputed by God," says Mr. Hughes, 
"some power was given, but to Christ all power 
both in heaven and on earth : and it was in the 
eucharist alone that this all power was exercised." 1 

De Corp. et Sang. Dom. in Eucli., lib. cap. 1, Edit. Paris, 
A. D. 1575. 

1 Controversy with Breckenridge, No. xxvii, p. 220. 



112 ON THE EUCHARIST. 

And Dr. Wiseman labors hard to make it appear 
that the Apostles, "simple minded men/' having 
witnessed the miracles wrought by their Master, 
would not have used, "to interpret his simple 
words, ( This is my body/ any idea of the impossi- 
bility of their literal import." * 

To the propounders of such reasonings we may 
reply, as did Tertullian to those who affirmed, that 
"because the things which are impossible, with 
men are possible with God, it was not difficult to 
Him that he should make himself both father and 
son, contrary to the form delivered to human 
things." He answers: "Plainly nothing is diffi- 
cult to God. But if we make use of this opinion so 
inconsiderately in our presumptions, we shall be 
able to pretend anything whatever respecting God, 
as if he would do it because he has the ability. 
But not because He can do all things are we there- 
fore to believe that he has done all things ; nay, 
the question is not what he might do, but whether 
he will do it. God could, pardon me the expression, 
have provided man with wings for flying as he has 
furnished them to birds ; nevertheless, not because 
he could, did he forthwith do it. He could have 
immediately extinguished Praxeas and all heretics 
in like manner ; nevertheless, not because he could, 

did he put an end to them In this manner 

there will be somewhat that is difficult even to God ; 
to wit, whatsoever he will not do; not because he 
could not, but because he would not: for God's 

POWER IS HIS WILL, AND NOT TO HAVE POWER IS NOT 
TO WILL." D 

So Origen says: "We do not retreat into that 
most absurd subterfuge, saying that all things are 
possible to God .... We say that God cannot act 

i In Op. Cit., pp. 211-218. 

D Adv. Praxeain, cap. x, p. 505. 



THE WORDS OF mSTITIJTION. 113 

wickedly, otherwise he who will be God, is not 
God and we affirm that God will not do those 

THINGS WHICH ARE CONTRARY TO NATURE, nor those 

that spring from wickedness and folly. But if 
things are done according to the word of God and 

his will, THEY ARE OF NECESSITY NOT CONTRARY TO NA- 
TURE; NEITHER ARE THOSE THINGS WHICH ARE WROUGHT 

by God contrary to nature; although they may 
be paradoxical, or seem paradoxical to some. But 
if we must specify, we will say that, as to our 
nature, considered in its impure state, there are 
some things which God does that are above nature, 
when he elevates man above his human nature, 
and causes him to change to a nature better and 
more divine." E 

No labored argument will be required, I appre- 
hend, to show that the proper instrument by which 
to ascertain what is " according to the word of God 
and his will" what is " above nature" and what is 
" contrary to it," is the human reason. It is by the 
exercise of this faculty, that we have endeavored " to 
discover the truth," according to the rule of Clemens 
Alexandrinus, "by considering thoroughly what is 
perfectly proper and fitting to the Lord and to God 
the Creator, and by confirming each of those things 
demonstrated according to the Scriptures from 
those Scriptures which again are similar." We 
have also endeavored to show the correctness of 
that other proposition included in the same rule, 
namely, that "by changing the signification of 
things," they, [who advocate the literal interpre- 
tation of Christ's words,] "do overturn all true 
doctrine." 

You will also doubtless recollect that, according 
to the rule given by Horne, " The literal meaning of 

E Contra Celsum, lib. v, No. 23. Opera, vol. 1, p. 595. Edit 
Paris, A. D. 1759. 
10* 



114 ON THE EUCHARIST. 

words is to be given up, if it be either improper, or 
involve an impossibility ; or when words, properly 
taken, contain any thing contrary to the doctrinal 
or moral precepts delivered in the other parts of 
Scripture." 

That all these difficulties necessarily follow the 
literal interpretation of our Saviour's words, has 
been clearly and fully shown ; it must therefore be 
given up. And so fully persuaded am I, that this 
your exposition is wrong, that I could just as soon 
believe that God can be guilty of falsehood or 
self-contradiction, as believe your doctrine. 

11. In conclusion, several very distinguished 
divines in your own communion, have acknow- 
ledged that the doctrine of tran substantiation is 
not taught by the word of God. 

Cardinal Alliaco says, "It appears that this doc- 
trine [which teaches that the substance of bread 
remains after consecration] is possible; nor is it 
repugnant to reason or the authority of the Bible, 
nay, it is easier to be understood and more reasona- 
ble than any other. " F 

Scotus says, " There is no place to be found in 
the Scripture that may compel a man to believe the 
transubstantiation had not the church so deter- 
mined it." 2 

Cardinal Bellarmine admits this declaration of 
Scotus to be "not altogether improbable ; for though 
the Scripture we have alleged seems to us so plain 
that it may compel a man not frcward, yet it may 
be justly doubted whether it be so, when the most 
learned and acute men, such especially as Scotus, 
held a contrary opinion." G 

F In Sent, iv, qu. vi, art 2. Cited by Ousley, p. 198. 

2 In Dist. xi, qu. 3. 

G Lib. iii, cap. 33, de Eucharist. 



THE WORDS OF INSTITUTION. 115 

Cardinal Cajetan, in his notes on Aquinas, re- 
marks: "The other point which the Gospel has 
not expressly unfolded, we have received from the 
church, that is, the conversion of the bread into the 
body of Christ, we have not plainly in the Gospel." 
Again, "there appears from the Gospel nothing 
which compels to understand these words This is 
my body, in a proper sense. Nay, that presence in 
the sacrament which the church holds, cannot be 
proved from these words of Christ, unless the decla- 
ration of the church be also added." H 

And Fisher, Bishop of Kochester, and a martyr 
of your church, affirms, "That there is not one 
word in the institution, from which the true pres- 
ence of Christ's flesh and blood, in our mass, can 
be proved." 1 

Yasquez, 2 Ogham, 3 Alphonsus de Castro, 4 Du- 
rand, 5 Gabriel Biel, 6 Melchior Canits, 7 and Car- 
dinal Contarenus, 8 also agree with the foregoing, 
that the doctrine of transubstantiation cannot be 
proved from the Holy Scriptures. 

It is proper here to remark, that these authors 
flourished in those ages when the authority of the 
Church of Rome stood higher in the public estima- 
tion than at the present day. Intelligent men are 
now losing their undue regard for the mere author- 
ity of their predecessors, and are beginning to look 
for themselves into the grounds of their faith ; and 
it requires not the spirit of a prophet, to forsee the 
fate of the doctrine in question, when mankind 
shall have burst those spiritual bonds, which, for 

H Cajet. in Thorn, p. iii, q. 75, art. 1. 

1 Contr. Captiv. Babylon, cap. x, No. 2. 

2 Part, iii, Disp. 180. 6 In Canon. Miss. Lect. 43. 

3 Sent, iv, q. v. .7 Loc. Theol. lib. iii, cap. 3. 

4 De Hasres. lib. viii. 8 De Sacram. lib. ii, cap. 3. 
6 In Sent. lib. iv, dist. 11, q. 1. 



116 ON THE EUCHARIST. 

many ages, have bowed their souls to the authority 
of a human institution. 

How significant is the testimony of these dis- 
tinguished writers. It is no other than a plain 
confession that their church obliges them to a doc- 
trine which is not taught in the Gospel, and there- 
fore to a new doctrine, a heresy ! ! ! 

And this is a doctrine that occupies no ordinary 
place in your creed. Indeed, Mr. Hughes in his 
controversy acknowledges, that the sacrifice of the 
Mass is the principal business of Romish priests. 
Can it be true, that the chief employment of your 
clergy is no other than the celebration of a mere 
human institution? 

And is it possible, as you inform me, that your 
"heart burns for the conversion of your dear 
friends" to such a faith, and to the observance of 
such an unscriptural ceremony, as the sacrifice of 
the Mass?' I greatly suspect that you never re- 
ceived your fire from heaven's altar. Beware, I 
entreat you, lest that come upon you which was 
long since threatened to all those " that kindle a 
fire, that compass themselves about with sparks;" 
(Isa. 1 : 11,) and to such as trust in man and 
make flesh their arm. (Jer. xvii: 5.) 

That we may be found in the day of eternity the 
true worshipers who worship in spirit and in 
truth, is the sincere desire and humble prayer of 
him who subscribes himself, 

Your friend and brother, 

E. 0. P. 



LETTER VII. 

VIEWS OF THE ANTE-NICENE FATHERS RESPECTING THE 
BODY AND BLOOD OF CHRIST IN THE EUCHARIST. 

Dear Brother : — Having shown from the sacred 
writings of the New Testament, the earliest and 
most authoritative history of the primitive church, 
that the doctrine of transubstantiation is not dedu- 
cible from our Saviour's language, either in his 
discourse to the Jews at Capernaum, or to his dis- 
ciples at the institution of the Eucharist, it remains 
for me to verify my early affirmation, that "the 
Fathers of the first six or seven centuries, speak of 
the eucharistic elements as the figure of Christ's 
broken body and shed blood." 

But in what light are we to regard the writings 
of the early Fathers of the Christian Church? 

From the acquaintance which I have been able 
to make with them, I make free to say, that I re- 
gard the Fathers as very unsafe guides, in many 
matters relating to the Christian religion. Their 
interpretations of Scripture are often wanting in 
sound judgment, fanciful, and even puerile. At 
no very remote period from the ascent of our Lord, 
superstitious usages and heathenish practices began 
to make their appearanee in the church ; among 
which may be enumerated, the signing of the cross 
on the forehead in baptism, the mixing of water 
with the sacramental wine, reserving a part of the 
eucharistic bread to send to the sick, the using of 
holy water, incense, and tapers, the adoption of 
monasticism, and the honoring of deceased martyrs 
by ceremonies performed at their graves. Of this 



118 ON THE EUCHARIST. 

class of disciplinary usages says one, " If you de- 
mand Scripture authority, you will find none. 
Tradition is pretended as their author, custom their 
confirmer, and faith their observer. " A None but 
vague tradition could be found capable of measur- 
ing back their years ; and even he refuses to tell 
their age, or birth-place ; custom however had given 
them confirmation, and faith in their supposed 
utility, had secured a cordial observance. No won- 
der when such usages had become common in the 
church, that the dove-like spirit .of a true and 
rational piety fled from the society of professing 
Christians, and left them to a cold and formal 
ritualism, to a lifeless sacramentarianism : So that 
"the Church of God and spouse of Christ had fallen 
to that state of evil, that, for celebrating the heav- 
enly sacraments, light borrowed discipline of dark- 
ness, and Christians did what anti-christ prac- 
tised." 3 Notwithstanding these disciplinary cor- 
ruptions, it is doubtless true that, for several ages 
after Christ, the fundamental doctrines of Christi- 
anity, as now held by the Protestant Churches, 
continued to be the creed of the ancient Christians. 
The Holy Scriptures were their only and sufficient 
rule of faith. But laxity of discipline did not long 
exist, without being followed by laxity and innova- 
tion in doctrine. The very questionable practice 
of praying for the dead was succeeded by praying 
to the dead; the employment of images as aids and 
incentives to devotion, was at length followed by 
their worship ; and clerical celibacy, at the first 
approved and lauded only, has in the Church of 
Rome passed into an unyielding law. The same 
law of progressive development, is observable in 
other doctrines and institutions of the ancient 

A Tertul. de Cor. Milit., c. iv, p. 102. 
B Cyprian, Epist. 74, ad Pompeium. 



VIEWS OF THE ANTE-NICENE FATHERS. 119 

Church, especially in the value and necessity of the 
sacraments. 

Convinced, therefore, as we are, of the errors of 
the early church, we do not embrace their doctrines 
and adopt their usages any farther than they are 
found to agree with those of the New Testament 
Scriptures. The revealed word of God is our rule 
of Christian faith ; and from this we make no ap- 
peal to the Fathers, as possessing any decisive au- 
thority in the premises. We do not refer to them 
as our judges, but as credible witnesses of usages 
practiced, and doctrines believed, in their own 
times. We do not try the Scriptures by them ; but 
we try them by the Scriptures, as they did one an- 
other. "Not as Peter and Paul do I command 
you," says Ignatius. "They were the Apostles of 
Jesus Christ, but I am the least." 

To a supposed objector to his explanation, says 
another : " I do not require any belief in these my 
words, unless I shall give suitable witnesses. I 
will give you the Lord himself, even our Saviour 
Jesus Christ as their witness and author." 

"Believe me not," says Cyril, " simply deliver- 
ing these things to thee, unless thou find the proof 
of those things spoken, in the divine Scriptures: 
for the preservation of our faith is not grounded 
upon the eloquence of language, but upon the 
proofs derived from the divine Scriptures." 15 

Augustine, speaking of those books which we 
write, says: "As for this kind of books, we are to 
read them, not with the necessity of believing, but 

with the liberty of judging them In no 

way do they equal that most sacred excellence of 
the canonical Scriptures, although in some of them 

c Epist. ad Rom. No. 38, p. 85. Ed. Oxen. 1644. 

D Origen, Horn, vii, in Levit., No. 5. 

E Cyril. Hicros. Catech. Ilium, iv, c. 12, p. 56. 



120 ON THE EUCHARIST. 

the same truth is found, nevertheless, they are of 
very unequal authority. Therefore, if hy chance 
we here meet with such things as seem contrary to 
the truth, because they are not understood, the 
reader or hearer has the liberty to approve what he 
likes, or to reject what offends. And therefore, 
unless all things of this kind be defended by some 
certain reason, or canonical authority, and it be 
made to appear, that what is disputed or narrated, 
either really is, or might have been, he that shall 
be displeased or not believe the same, is not to be 
reprehended." F 

Writing to Theophilus, Patriarch of Alexandria, 
Jerome says : " I know that I hold the Apostles in 
a rank distinct from other writers ; the former 
always speak truth, the latter sometimes err, as 
they are men." G Again, "Some, both Greeks and 
Latins, have erred in points of faith ; whose names 
I must not produce, lest we might seem to defend 
Origen by the errors of others, rather than by his 
own worth. " H 

Much more might be cited from these Fathers 
themselves, and from several distinguished writers 
of your own church, to prove that the writings of 
the ancients possess no decisive authority, in mat- 
ters of Christian doctrine ; but thus much will suf- 
fice to show, in what light we are to consider their 
productions. 

From the nature of the case, therefore, ours must 
be regarded as a historical inquiry, not of mere 
curiosity, but of intense interest^ and no inconsid- 
erable degree of relative importance. For, although 
the Fathers were fallible men like ourselves, and 
may have entertained many errors in discipline and 

F Aug. Ep. ad Hieron. lib. xi, contr. Faust, cap. 5. 
G Hieron. Epist. lxii, ad Theopli. Alex. 
H Idem, Ep. lxv, ad Punem. et Oceanum. 



VIEWS OE THE ANTE-NICENE FATHERS. 121 

doctrine, nevertheless, being credible historians, if 
they generally concur in recording the existence of 
any usage or doctrine, in preference to another -and 
totally different, we are not only bound to believe 
their testimony, but we must also admit that such 
concurrent evidence, in regard to a Scriptural mat- 
ter, of a disputed, yet practical nature, is an im- 
portant aid in arriving at the truth in the case. 

II. Let us then see what they say in regard to 
the eucharistic sacrament, and ascertain whether 
they speak of the elements employed as the figure 
of Christ's broken body and shed blood. 

1. In the few epistles left by Ignatius, we find 
but little that relates to the Eucharist; and this 
seems to have been chiefly written by way of ex- 
hortation to its use as a means of grace,, whereby 
the love and unity of believers is to be promoted. 
"Hasten therefore," says he, "to come together 
more frequently to the Eucharist of God, and unto 
glory ; for, when the same is continually done, the 
powers of Satan are destroyed, and his weapons, 
burning unto sin, are turned back ineffectual ; for, 
your concord and consonant faith are his destruc- 
tion, and the torment of his armor-bearers." 1 And 
near the close of the same epistle, he again exhorts : 
"Stand firm, therefore, brethren, in the faith of 
Jesus Christ, and in his love, and in his passion 
and resurrection. And do ye all assemble in the 
grace of his name, in the one common faith of God 
the Father, and Jesus Christ his only-begotten Son, 
and the first-born of every creature; but, according 
to the flesh, of the race of David. Directed by the 
Comforter, do you obey your bishop and the pres- 
bytery, with undistracted mind, breaking one bread 
which is the medicine of immortality, the antidote, 
that we should not die, but live in God through 

iEp. ad Ephes. No. 56, p. 10. 



122 ON THE EUCHARIST. 

Jesus Christ." J "Do you therefore, resuming a 
gentle forbearance, renew yourselves in faith, which 
is the flesh of the Lord, and in charity, which is the 
blood of Jesus Christ. Let no one of you have 
aught against his neighbor." K 

By the expression, breaking one bread, we are 
without doubt, to understand Ignatius, as exhorting 
to use one Eucharist, and thereby preserve the 
unity of the Spirit in the bonds of Christian love : 
and when he denominates it the medicine of immor- 
tality, the antidote against death,he attributes to the 
outward sacrament, or sign, the immortalizing quali- 
ties of the thing signified, whose purifying and 
preserving influence is thereby procured and main- 
tained in the soul in an eminent manner. This 
being the meaning of the author, the term bread 
must be taken in its literal sense, otherwise we 
cannot properly connect with it the word breaking. 
For, if we suppose the term bread here to signify 
spiritual food, then it were wholly unwarrantable 
to exhort those addressed to break, or impart it, 
because this is God's prerogative. If therefore the 
term bread be used here in its proper sense, as it 
evidently is, then it is certain that Ignatius had no 
idea of its being Christ's real body, but his symboli- 
cal body only. 

2. Justin, who was martyred about the year 167, 
and sixty years after the death of Ignatius, has, in 
his first Apology to the Emperor Antoninus Pius, 
for the Christians, left us a somewhat minute de- 
scription of the manner in which the early church 
celebrated the Eucharist. After mentioning the 
prayers made at the introduction of one newly 
baptized, he continues: " When we have made an 
end of these prayers, we embrace one another with 

J Idem, No. 94, p. 46. 

k Idem, Ep. ad Trallasios, No. 72, p. 208. 



VIEWS OF THE ANTE-NICENE FATHERS. 123 

a kiss. Then is brought to the president of the 
brethren "bread, and a cup of water and wine mixed ; 
and he, receiving it, sends up praise and glory to 
the Father of the universe, through the name of his 
Son, and the Holy Spirit ; and he gives thanks at 
much length, that we are thought worthy of these 
things from him. He having made an end to these 
prayers and giving of thanks, all the people present 
respond, saying, Amen. Amen signifies in the 
Hebrew language, So let it be. When the presi- 
dent has given thanks, and all the people responded, 
those called by us deacons, give to each of those 
present to partake of the bread, for which thanks 
have been offered, and the wine and water ; and 
they send it to those not present. And this food is 
called by us the Eucharist, of which it is permitted 
to no other to partake, except him who believes 
those things taught by us to be true, and has been 
baptized for the remission of sins, and unto regen- 
eration ; and so lives as Christ has delivered. For 
we do not receive these as common bread and com- 
mon drink, but as our Saviour Jesus Christ, who 
was made flesh by the word of God, took flesh and 
blood for our salvation, so also we have been taught 
that the food for which thanks have been made by 
the prayer of his word, and by which our flesh and 
blood are nourished in the change, is the flesh and 
blood of that Jesus who was made flesh. For the 
Apostles, in the memoirs which were made by them 
and called Gospels, have so delivered, that when 
Jesus had taken bread and given thanks, he gave 
them command, saying : ' Do this in remembrance 
of me, this is my body ; ' and in like manner, when 
he had taken the cup and given thanks, he said: 
'This is my blood.' And to them only did he im- 
part [them.]" L 

L Justin. Mart. Apol. I, pro Cliristianis ad Ant. Pinm. Ed. 
Lond. 1732, pp. 95-07. 



124 ON THE EUCHARIST. 

Iii regard to this passage I remark. (1.) Our 
author denominates the eucharistic elements, both 
before and after the prayer of consecration, by the 
same terms, bread, and wine and water. (2.) He 
says, " We do not receive them as common or or- 
dinary bread and drink;" which implies, that, 
although they were not common bread and wine, 
yet they were really bread and wine. (3.) By these 
elements, he affirms that our flesh and blood are 
nourished in the change which they undergo, after 
being received. On the supposition that transub- 
stantiation be true, our flesh and blood are nourished, 
according to Justix, either by the mere accidents 
of bread and wine, which is impossible, or by the 
real body and blood of Jesus Christ, which is blas- 
phemous. 

From these considerations it appears perfectly 
certain, that Justin Martyr could have had no idea 
of a corporeal presence in the Eucharist. 

3. Irex^us, who lived till the year 202, uses, in 
several places, language similar to that just quoted 
from Justin Martyr. He remarks: "Since then we 
are Christ's members, and are nourished by the 
creature; but he gives us the creature, making his 
sun to rise and sending rain as he will; that cup, 
which is of the creature, he confessed [to be] his 
own blood, by which our blood is increased, and 
that bread which is of the creature, he confirmed 
[to be] his own body, by which our bodies are in- 
creased. "When, therefore, the mixed cup and the 
wrought bread receive the Word of God, they be- 
come the Eucharist of the blood and body of Christ, 
and by these the substance of our flesh is increased 
and consists." M 

In order properly to understand this and like 
passages from several others of the Fathers, we 

M Ireii. Adversus Hsereses, lib. v, cap. li, Edit. Lond. 1702. 



VIEWS OF THE ANIE-NICENE FATHERS. 125 

must have in mind the ancient heresy against 
which they were writing. This passage was penned 
against those who denied the proper humanity of 
Jesus Christ. In a former hook, this author tells 
us of " some, who suppose that Christ was man- 
ifested as a transfigured man, hut was neither horn, 
nor incarnated. But others say that he did not 
assume the form of man, hut that he descended 
like a dove upon that Jesus who was horn of 
Mary." 1 They said that the flesh in which Christ 
appeared was not his own, but belonged to some 
other than the proper Christ. And they not only 
denied the proper incarnation of Christ in particu- 
lar, but in general they also "denied the salvation 
of the flesh, scoffed at its regeneration, and said 
that it was not capable of incorruptibility." It was 
against these fundamental errors, that our author 
penned this chapter ; and he shows, that, according 
to this, the Lord has not redeemed us by his own 
blood, neither is the cup of the Eucharist the com- 
munication of his blood, nor the bread which we 
break, the communication of his body." From 
these observations we see the propriety and force 
of the words his and his own, as used in connection 
with the terms, body, and blood. Hence, also, the 
appropriateness of the words, he confessed to be his 
blood and confirmed to be his body ; by which he 
intended to indicate the certainty of these eucha- 
ristic elements representing the body of Christ 
himself and of no other. 

That Iren^eus does not intend the proper and real 
body and blood of Christ, when he designates the 
eucharistic elements by those epithets, is evident 
from the latter part of the passage cited, wherein 
he expressly declares the bread and cup to be the 
Eucharist of his body and blood, by which the sub- 

1 Lib. iii, cap. xl, p. 219. 
11* 



126 OX TIIE EUCHARIST. 

stance of Our flesh is increased, and consists. In- 
deed, it was the opinion of Iren^eus, together with 
several others of the Fathers, that Christ himself 
drank of the cup at the institution of this sacra- 
ment. Thus he says: " When he had given thanks, 
taking the cup he drank of it, gave it to the disci- 
ples, and said to them : Drink ye all of it." n 

He could not therefore have believed that cup to 
be the real and proper blood of Christ ; for, the idea 
of Christ's drinking his own blood, is too abhorrent 
for a sane mind to entertain for a moment. Every 
nobler feeling of our nature repels the thought. 

4. The force of the remarks which have been 
suggested, as explanatory of the passage cited from 
Irekeus, will farther appear from a few passages 
from Tertullian, his contemporary. This author 
also wrote largely against Marcion, who, as Irekeus 
tells us, in the twenty-ninth chapter of his first 
Book against Heresies, blasphemed God, rejected 
the Gospel according to Luke, and those parts of 
our Lord's discourses "in which he manifestly 
declared his Father to be the maker of the world." 
"And, in like manner, he cut from the Epistles of 
Paul the Apostle, taking away whatever was said 
manifestly by the Apostle of that God who made 
the world, that he is the Father of our Lord Jesus 
Christ; and whatever the Apostle taught from the 
prophecies which foretold the advent of the Lord." 
In short, he emphatically denied Christ's incarna- 
tion and his passibility, or capability of suffering. 
To him, therefore, Tertullian objects: "'For unto 
us a child is born, and unto us a son is given/ 
What know I if he does not speak of the Son of 
God, whose government was laid upon his shoulder? 
Who bears a kingdom, the sign of his power, upon 
his shoulder, and does not also bear either a diadem 

N Adv. Hseres., lib. v, cap. 33. 



VIEWS OF THE ANTE-NICENE FATHERS. 127 

upon his head, or a sceptre in his hand, or some 
proper mark of dress? But Christ Jesus, the only 
new King of the new dispensation, has borne upon his 
shoulder the power and sublimity of his new glory, 
to wit, his cross; so that, according to the above 
prophecy, the Lord henceforth reigns from the tree. 
This tree Jeremiah also intimates to thee when 
speaking of the Jews who said, 6 Come let us cast 
away the tree with the bread of it/ with his body 
assuredly. For in your Gospel also God has 
revealed it calling bread his body, that you may 
understand, that he has given to the bread to be a 
figure of his body; whose body the prophet had 
before figured by bread ; the Lord himself being 
about to interpret this sacrament afterward." 
"But indeed he does not, even to this present time, 
reject the water with which he washes his people, 
nor the oil with which he anoints them, nor the 
union of honey and milk with which he feeds his 
infant ones, nor the bread with which he repre- 
sents his own body, even in his own sacrament 
needing the beggarly things of the Creator/' 1 * 

Again he says: " The bread which he took and 
distributed to his disciples, that he made his body, 
by saying, 'This is my body/ that is, a figure oi my 
body. But it would not have been a figure, un- 
less his body had been a true one. But a void 
thing, as a phantasm, cannot take a figure. More- 
over, if he had feigned bread for his body, because 
he was destitute of a true one, then he ought to 
have delivered bread for us. That bread had been 
crucified, would have been practising after Mar- 
cion's vanity. But why does he call bread his 
body and not rather [call it] the gourd— pepowem — 
which Marcion had in the place of a heart, not un- 

° Adv. Marcion, lib. iii, cap. 19. 
p Id., lib. i,cap. 1-1. 



128 ON THE EUCHARIST. 

derstancling that this was an ancient figure of 
Christ's body; who said by Jeremiah: 'Against 
me have they devised devices, saying ; Come let 
us cast away the tree with the bread thereof;' to 
wit, the cross with his body. And thus the illu- 
minator of antiquity sufficiently declared what he 
then wished to signify by bread, calling his body 
bread. So also by the mention of the cup, when 
he constituted the testament sealed with his blood, 

HE CONFIRMED THE SUBSTANCE OF HIS BODY. For of no 

body can there be blood, except of flesh. And if 
any kind of body not fleshly be opposed to us, cer- 
tainly it shall not have blood except it be fleshly. 
Thus the proof of the body depends upon the testi- 
mony of the flesh, and the proof of the flesh upon 
the testimony of the blood. " q You see that Ter- 
tullian was not very well versed in the doctrine of 
the unbloody sacrifice of the body of Christ in the 
Mass. He lived too early to be initiated into its 
mysteries. 

The whole scope and design of Tertullian, in 
the passages quoted, is evidently to prove the re- 
ality of Christ's human flesh, against the error of 
Marcion, from those Scriptures which point to his 
flesh and blood by certain figurative expressions, 
in which the term bread was understood to indi- 
cate the body of Christ, and the term wine his 
blood. R In doing this he makes use of the words 
of institution. This is my body, and the passage of 
Jeremiah to prove the same thing, namely, that 
bread is a figurative representation of the body of 
Christ. And he produces the mention of the cup, 
at the eucharistic institution, together with two 
other passages from the Old Testament, immedi- 
ately following the last passage above cited, to show 

Q Adv. Mar., lib. iv, cap. 40, p. 457. 
R Idem, lib. v, cap. 8, p. 470. 



VIEWS OF THE ANTE-NICENE FATHERS. 129 

that by the Scriptural use of the term wine the 
blood of Christ is figuratively indicated. Nothing 
therefore can be more evident than the meaning of 
Tertullian, which is, that the bread and wine of 
the Eucharist, are the figure or symbol of Christ's 
real body and blood. And we can no more sup- 
pose, that he understood the words of Christ liter- 
ally, than we can, that he understood, in their 
literal sense, the passages referred to in the Old 
Testament. 

Besides, Iren^us, in reference to the Valen- 
tinians and Marcionites, says: "According to no 
opinion of the heretics, was the Word of God 
made flesh. For, if any one will examine their 
rules, he will find that the Word of God is repre- 
sented by them all as without flesh, and impassi- 
ble." 1 And Tertullian says that "Marcion pre- 
fers to believe Christ to be a phantasm, altogether 
scorning the verity of his body.' ;S 

A phantasm is something that appears to be 
what it is not. As here used it indicates, that 
Marcion believed the human body of Christ to be 
not real, but only apparent. 

Now had Tertullian been a transubstantiation- 
ist, that part of his argument which relates to the 
Eucharist, would have been irrelevant ; and Marcion 
might have replied to his confusion: "Hold, sir, 
your argument to prove the verity of Christ's body 
and blood from the eucharistic elements avails you 
not ; for if your doctrine of this sacrament be true, 
then, so far from demonstrating Christ's body to be 
real, you rather prove, that the outward appear- 
ances of things are not certainly indicative of their 
interior nature, and, therefore, what appeared to be 
a real human body of Christ, might not have been 

1 Adv. H seres., lib. iii, cap. 11, p. 219. 
s De Anima liber, cap. xvii, p. 27G. 



130 ON THE EUCHARIST. 

such. We stand on common ground. You teach 
that what appears to the sight, touch, smell and 
taste, to be real bread and wine, is not real bread 
and wine ; and I believe that what appeared to the 
sight and touch, to be a real human body, was not 
real, but only apparent." 

5. Clement of Alexandria, says : " The blood of 
Christ is two-fold ; for, the one is his fleshly, by 
which we have been redeemed from corruption, but 
the other is his spiritual, that is, by which we have 
been anointed. And this is to drink the blood of 
Jesus, to partake of the Lord's incorruption. But 
the strength of the word is the spirit, as the blood 
is of the flesh. Analogously, therefore, wine is 
mingled with water, as the spirit is with man ; and 
the mixture of wine and water feeds unto faith, but 
the spirit leads unto incorruption, and the mixture 
of both the drink and the word has been called the 
Eucharist, that is, a bestowal of distinguished 
thanks, of which they who partake by faith are 
made holy, body and soul, the Father's will together 
with the spirit and Word mystically mingling the 
divine mixture, man." 1 

In pursuing the subject of his discourse he after- 
wards remarks: a The Scythians, Celtas, Iberians, 
and Thracians, all which are warlike nations, are 
especially addicted to drunkenness ; and they con- 
sider it a pleasant and happy thing to exercise 
themselves in the pursuits of life. But we, a peace- 
ful people, living together for enjoyment not for 
injury, drink sober draughts to one another, that 
our friendships may in reality be shown suitable to 
our name. How think ye the Lord drank when 
he was made man ? So shamefully as we do ? Did 
he not do it with urbanity and with becomingness? 
Did he not do it considerately ? For know ye well, 

t Paedagog. lib. ii, cap. 2. Oxon. 1715, pp. 177, 178. 



VIEWS OF THE ANTE-NICENE FATHERS. 131 

he also partook of wine, for he also was a man. And 
he blessed the wine, saying, Take ye and drink; 
this is my blood, the blood of the vine. As to the 
word, 'shed for many for the remission of sins/ 
it allegorically signifies a holy stream of gladness. 
And, that it is necessary that he who drinks should 
do it temperately, he clearly showed by what he 
taught at the feast, for he taught not being drunken. 
But that what was blessed was wine, he again 
showed when he said to his disciples : 'Of this fruit 
of the wine I drink not, until I drink it with you 
in my Father's kingdom/ Moreover, that what 
was drank by the Lord was wine, he again says 
concerning himself when upbraiding the Jews* 
hardness of heart: 'For the Son of man, says he, 
came, and they say, Behold a man who is a glutton 
and a wine-bibber, a friend of publicans/ Let this 
be firmly fastened by us upon those called Encra- 
tites." u 

In the chapter from which the above passages are 
selected, Clement discourses upon the manner in 
which we are to conduct ourselves in the use of 
wine; Pos to poto prosenekteon — and argues that 
although " water is the natural, and, therefore, the 
sober drink for the thirsty," nevertheless the mode- 
rate use of wine has been sanctioned by the exam- 
ple of Christ and his Apostles. In proof of this, 
he refers to the miracle wrought at the marriage, 
in Cana of Galilee/ (John ii,) to the words of 
Christ, when he upbraided the Jews (Matt: ii, 19,) 
to the exhortation of the Apostle Paul to Timothy w 
(I Tim. v: 23,) and especially, to the employment 
of the '^ blood of the vine" at the institution of the 
Eucharist by Christ, which he proves to have been 
wine, after it was blessed, from the words, "Of this 

u Idem Paedogog. lib. ii, cap. 2, p. 186. 

v Ib. p. 184. wib. p. 177. 



132 ON THE EUCHARIST. 

fruit of the vine I will not drink, until I drink it 
with you in the kingdom of my Father." Add to 
this, the pointed application of his whole argument 
to the Encratites, who held wine in such abhorrence, 
as to use mere water in the Lord's supper, and we 
have from this author, a most conclusive testimony 
against transubstantiation. 

6. In opposition to the Marcionites, Origen asks: 
" But if, as they say, Christ was destitute of flesh 
and blood, of what kind of flesh, or of what body, 
or of what kind of blood, did he give as images the 
bread and the cup, and command his disciples by 
these to make a remembrance of him? " x 

In another place he undertakes to show, that 
Christ, our High Priest, abstained from wine when 
he approached the altar of his cross, in the same 
manner as did the high priest under the law, when 
about to go into the tabernacle of the congregation, 
(Levit. x : 9,) and observes : " The Saviour came 
into this world, that he might offer his flesh a 
sacrifice to God for our sins. Before he made this 
offering, whilst engaged in his dispensations, he 
drank wine. In fine, he was called a gluttonous 
man, and a wine-drinker, a friend of publicans and 
sinners. But when the time of his crucifixion drew 
near, and lie was about to come to the altar, where 
he should immolate the sacrifice of his flesh, taking 
the cup, he blessed, and gave it to his disciples, say- 
ing : l Take ye and drink of this.' He said, do you 
drink who are not now about to come to the altar. 
But he, as it were about coming to the altar, says 
concerning himself: 'Verily, I say unto you, that 
I will not drink of the fruit of this vine until I 
drink it with you new in my Father's Kingdom.' " x 

x Dialog de recta in Deum tide, Sect, iv, torn, i, p. 853, Paris, 
1759. 

Y In Levit., Hoinil. vii, No. 1, torn, ii, p. 220. 



VIEWS OF THE ANTE-NICENE FATHERS. 133 

From these remarks Origen obviously believed 
that the Apostles drank wine but not blood in the 
Eucharist; otherwise the passage has no meaning. 
Indeed, he puts this beyond all controversy, by 
going on to show the propriety of Christ's abstain- 
ing then from wine "which makes glad the heart 
of man/' inasmuch as he was affected with sadness 
for the sins of men. 

Again, "If all that enters into the mouth goes 
into the belly, and is cast out into the draught, then 
even the food which is sanctified by the word of 
God and supplication, according to that which is 
material, goes into the belly, and is cast out into 
the draught : but, according to the prayer which is 
made over it, and the proportion of faith, it becomes 
profitable, and is the cause of that clear-sightedness 
of the mind which discerns unto profiting. And it 
is not the matter of the bread, but the word spoken 
over it, that profits him who eats worthy of the 
Lord. And thus much concerning his typical and 
symbolical body." 2 

Most certain, therefore, is it, that he did not con- 
sider that "which was sanctified by the word of 
God and prayer," to be the real body and blood of 
Christ. For, besides the irreconcilable disagreement 
between his words and such a belief, he elsewhere 
teaches, that Christ's body " after its resurrection, 
was, as it were, in a certain state, between that 
grossness of body which it had before its passion, 
and the manifestation of a soul destitute of such a 
body." 2 To say that such a heavenly and glorified 
body, enters the mouth, passes into the belly, and 
is cast out into the draught, would become a de- 
mentate better than a Christian philosopher. 

z Com. in Matt. torn, xi, No. 14. 
2 Contra Celsum, lib. 2, p. 434, No. 62. 
12 



134 ON THE EUCHARIST. 

7. Cyprian, Bishop of Carthage, in a letter to 
Cascilius, writes very decidedly against those hereti- 
cal Aquarians who used water only in the Lord's 
Supper. A few passages from this epistle will suf- 
fice to show the author's views, respecting the 
nature of the element used in the Eucharist. He 
argues, with more zeal than wisdom perhaps, that 
water should he mingled with the wine, in order to 
represent the union "between Christ and his people, 
the wine answering to the hlood of Christ, and the 
water to believers. He says : " You know that we 
have been admonished, that in offering the cup, the 
tradition of the Lord should he preserved ; neither 
should any thing be done by us different from what 
the Lord first did for us ; so that the cup which is 
offered in his memory, should be offered mixed with 
wine. For when Christ says, ' I am the true vine/ 
the blood of Christ is not water assuredly, but wine. 
Nor can his blood, by which we have been redeemed 
and quickened, seem to be in the cup, when the 
wine is wanting in the cup, by which is represented 
the blood of Christ." He then speaks of Noah and 
Melchisedec as types of Christ, who drank and 
offered wine, and adds : " Who is more eminently 
a priest of the Most High God than our Lord Jesus 
Christ who offered a sacrifice to God the Father, 
and offered this same that Melchisedec offered, that 
is, bread and wine, to wit, his body and blood." . . . 
Again, " ' I say unto you, that I will not henceforth 
drink of this creature of the vine, until on that day 
in which I will drink the new wine with you in my 
Father's kingdom.' In this place we find that the 
cup was mixed [?] which the Lord offered, and that 
it was wine which he called his blood. Whence it 
appears, that the blood of Christ is not offered, if 
wine is wanting in the cup." . . . "And because 
Christ, who has borne our sins, has borne us all, 
we see by the water, that the people are understood, 



VIEWS OF THE ANTE-NICENE FATHERS. 135 

but by the wine, the blood of Christ is shown forth. 
And when water is mixed with wine in the cup, the 
people are united to Christ, and the multitude of 
the faithful, are coupled and joined to him in whom 
they have believed. 

This coupling and uniting of wine and water, is 
so mingled in the cup of the Lord, that this mix- 
ture cannot be separated. Whence, nothing can 
separate from Christ the Church, that is, the people 
in the Church, established in the faith, and firmly 
persevering in what they have believed, that love 
should not always draw them together and remain 
inseparable. Thus, in the sanctification of the 
Lord's cup, water alone cannot be offered, as 
neither wine alone can be; for if any one offer 
wine alone, the blood of Christ is without us ; but 
if the water be alone, the people are without 
Christ." . . . "But the discipline of all religion and 
truth is subverted, unless that which is spiritually 
commanded, be faithfully preserved, if in the morn- 
ing sacrifices any one fears, lest by the savor of the 
wine he smell of the blood of Christ." A 

From all our sins may Christ's atoning blood 
cleanse you and 

Your Brother, 

E. 0. P. 

A Cyprian, Epist. lxiii, ad Csecilium de Sacram. Doni. Cali- 
cis, torn. 1, pp. 146-150. 



LETTER VIII. 

VIEW OF THE POST-NICENE FATHERS RESPECTING THE 
BODY AND BLOOD OF CHRIST IN THE EUCHARIST. 

Dear Brother: — In my last, I examined in a 
manner somewhat circumstantial, the testimony of 
the most distinguished Fathers of the ante-Nicene 
Church, and found them, in letter, spirit and de- 
sign, adverse to your modern doctrine of the Eu- 
charist. In producing similar evidence from the 
later writings of the church, it will not there- 
fore be necessary to quote in detail, or indulge in 
lengthened remark. 

1. Eusebius holds the following language: "He 
delivered to his disciples the symbols of the divine 
economy, commanding the image of his body to be 
made." A And, "They received a command, ac- 
cording to the institution of the new dispensation, 
to celebrate the remembrance of that sacrifice, by 
the symbols of his body and saving blood. " B 

2. Macarius of Egypt asks: "What are those 
things which eye hath not seen nor ear heard, 
neither have entered into the heart of man ? An- 
swer. At that time the great and just, and kings 
and prophets knew that the Redeemer would indeed 
come; but that he would suffer and be crucified, 
and his blood shed upon the cross, they neither 
knew nor had they heard ; neither had it entered 
into their hearts, that there would be the baptism 
of fire and of the Holy Ghost; and, that in the 

A Euseb, Demonstrat Evang., lib. viii, c. 1. 
B Idem, Demonstr. Ev., lib. i, c. ult. 



TESTIMONY OF THE POST-NICENE FATHERS. 137 

church there would be offered bread and wine, the 
antitype of his flesh and blood, and that they who 
partake of the visible bread would spiritually eat 
the flesh of the Lord." 

3. Cyril of Jerusalem exhorts: "Wherefore, 
with all assurance, let us partake of the body and 
blood of Christ; for in the type of bread his body 
is given thee, and in the type of wine his blood is 
given thee; so that, partaking of the body and 
blood of Christ, thou mayst be made, of the same 
body and blood with him." D 

4. Gregory Nazianzen, speaking of the Eucha- 
rist, says : " We shall now partake of the passover, 
typically indeed, yet more evident than the old ; 
for the legal /passover, I dare say, was a more ob- 
scure type of a type." E 

5. Ambrose, in his fourth book of the Sacraments, 
says : " Grant that this oblation, which is the figure 
of the body and blood of our Lord Jesus Christ, may 
be ascribed to us as reasonable and acceptable." F 

6. Jerome teaches that "the flesh of Christ is 
understood in two ways; either it is that spiritual 
and divine flesh of which he says : my flesh is meat 
indeed, and my blood is drink indeed ; and except ye 
shall eat my flesh, &c; or that flesh which was 
crucified, and that blood which was shed by the 
spear of the soldier." G "It is indeed lawful to eat 
of this sacrifice which is admirably made in remem- 
brance [of Christ,] but of that which Christ offered 
upon the altar of the cross, according to itself, it 
is permitted to no one to eat." H . We are permitted 

c Macar. Homil. xxvii. 

D Catech. Mystagog. iv, § 1, Opera Lond. 1703, p. 29. 
E Orat. ii in Pasch., torn, i, p. 692, Paris 1630. 
F Lib. iv, cap. 5, de Sacram. 

G Hieron. Com. in Ep. ad Eplies. i, torn, iii, p. 960. 
11 Dist. Can. de hac in Levit. 
12* 



138 ON THE EUCHARIST. 

to eat of the one, but not the other. Why not, if 
the sacrifice and victim are the same ? Because 
the former is typical, the latter was a real sacrifice 
of Christ, as he himself elsewhere says: "For a 
type of his blood, Christ offered^ not water, but 
wine." 1 

7. Augustine, speaking of Christ's forbearance, 
says : "So great and so marvelous was the patience 
of our Lord, that bearing with Judas, though not 
ignorant of his purpose,, he called him to the feast 
in which he commended and delivered to his disci- 
ples the figure of his body and blood. " J And, 
"The Lord did not hesitate to say, This is my body, 
when he gave the sign of his body/' K 

He urges the necessity of a spiritual participa- 
tion of the body and blood of Christ, as follows : 
"This then shall be, that is, the body and blood of 
Christ shall be life to every one, if what is visibly 
taken in the sacrament, be in very truth eaten and 
drunk spiritually. " L 

8. Facuxdus says : " The sacrament of adoption 
may be called adoption, just as the sacrament of 
the body and blood of Christ, which is in the con- 
secrated bread and wine, we are wont to call his 
body and blood. Not indeed that the bread is 
properly his body, or that the wine is properly his 
blood, but because they contain in themselves the 
mystery of his body and blood. Hence it was that 
our Lord denominated the consecrated bread and 
wine which he delivered to his disciples, his own 
body and blood. " M 

I cannot conceive how words can be arranged so 
as to deny more explicitly the doctrine of a corpo- 
real presence. 

1 Idem, lib. ii, adv. Jovinian. J Aug. in Psal. iii. 

K Idem, contra Adimant. cap. xii. 
L Idem, Serin, cxsxi, vol. v, p. 924. 
^ Lib. ix, Defens. iii, cap. 5. 



TESTIMONY OF THE POST-NICENE FATHERS. 139 

9. Isidore of Seville gives the following reasons 
for denominating bread and wine the body and 
blood of Christ: " Because bread strengthens the 
body, therefore it is called the body of Christ ; but 
wine, because it operates blood in the flesh, is 
therefore referred to the blood of Christ. Now 
these two are visible, but being sanctified by the 
Holy Spirit, they pass into the sacrament of his 
divine body." N 

The venerable Bede says: "In the place of the 
flesh and blood of the lamb, Christ has substituted 
the sacrament of his flesh and blood, in the figure 
of bread and wine." "He gave to his disciples at 
the supper, the figure of his most holy body and 
blood. " p 

I have now produced from the records of the 
ancient church a "cloud of witnesses" all bringing 
in the same testimony substantially in proof of my 
assertion, "that the fathers of the first six or seven 
centuries after Christ, speak of the eucharistic ele- 
ments as the figure of Christ's broken body and 
shed blood." And in examining the Ante-N"icene 
Fathers, I showed from their language together 
with its scope and design, that they could not have 
believed the doctrine of Christ's bodily presence in 
the Eucharist, as now taught by the church of 
Kome. In order to place the testimony of the later 
ecclesiastical writers in the same impregnable posi- 
tion, I will cite a few other passages, in which they ' 
expressly teach: 

II. That the elements of bread and wine do not 
lose their proper nature in virtue of consecration. 

1. Epiirem of Antioch undertakes to prove the 
two natures of Christ from the words of St. John : 
That which was from the beginning, which we have 

N De Eccles. Offic, lib. i, cap. 18. 

°Com. in Levit. xxii. p Idem, in Psal. iii. 



140 ON THE EUCHARIST. 

seen and our hands have handled of the Word of life. 
He argues hence, that he was both palpable and 
impalpable, and affirms that " No man of sense 
can say that the nature of that which is palpable 
and that which is impalpable, of that which is vis- 
ible and that which is invisible, is the same. In 
the same manner the body of Christ, which is taken 
by the faithful, does not depart from its sensible 
substance, and it remains inseparable from intelli- 
gible grace. And baptism, moreover, being made 
all spiritual, and being one, also preserves the pro- 
priety of its sensible substance, I speak of the 
water, and does not cease to be what it was." Q 

In the same manner are we to understand Fa- 
cundus, the African bishop, in the passage cited 
above, p. 138, as teaching the persistence of the 
nature of the bread and wine after consecration, 
when he says, "that the bread and wine are not 
called the body and blood of Christ because they 
are properly such, but because they contain in them- 
selves the mystery of his body and blood." 

2. Chrysostom writes against the Apollinarians : 
"Christ is G-od and man; God on account of his 
impassibility, man on account of his passion. 
One Son, One Lord, the very same possessing, 
without doubt, one dominion, one power, in his 
united natures, although they exist not consub- 
stantial ; and each [nature] preserves the acknow- 
ledgment of its propriety unmixed, and because 
they are without confusion, I say they are two. 
For as before the bread is sanctified, we call it 
bread, but being sanctified by divine grace, through 
the medium of the priest, it is liberated from the 
appellation of bread and dignified with the name 
of the Lord's body, although the nature of bread 

QEphrem Theopolitani, in Pliotli Bibliotheca, Dis. 229 
p. 794. 



TESTIMONY OE THE POST-NICENE FATHERS. 141 

remain" in it and is declared to be not two bodies, 
but one body of the Son, so also here, the divine 
nature residing, that is, pervading his body, these 
both make one Son, one person." R 

" When this passage was first produced by Peter 
Martyr," says Bingham, "it was looked upon as so 
unanswerable, that they of the Komish Church had 
no other way to evade the force of it, but to cry out, 
It was a forgery. Peter Martyr left it in the Lam- 
beth Library, but it was ravished thence in the 
reign of Queen Mary. Bigotius, a learned French 
Papist, published the original, but the whole edi- 
tion was suppressed. Yet, Le Moyne published it 
again in Latin among his Varia Sacra. And a 
learned Prelate, who now so deservedly holds the 
primacy in our own church, and whose indefatiga- 
ble industry against Popery will never be forgotten, 
having procured the sheets which the Sorbon Doc- 
tors caused to be suppressed in Bigotius' edition of 
Palladius, published it in our own tongue, with 
such of the Greek fragments as are now remaining. 
And in these monuments it will stand as the unan- 
swerable testimony of St. Chrysostom, and a key to 
explain all other passages of the Greek writers of 
that age, who were undoubtedly in the same senti- 
ments, of the Bread and Wine still remaining un- 
alterable in their substance." 1 

3. Gelasius, chosen Bishop of Pome near the 
close of the fifth century, has left a treatise on the 
two natures of Christ against Nestorius and Euty- 
ches, in which he uses the following language. 
" Certainly the sacraments of the body and blood 
of Christ which we take, are a divine thing ; for 
which cause we also by the same, are made partakers 

K Ep. ad Cesarium contr. Hseres. Apol. 
1 Bingham -s Antiquities of the Christian Church, vol. i, 
book xv, chap, v, sec. 4, p. 791, Lond. 1727. 



142 ON THE EUCHARIST. 

of the divine nature ; nevertheless, the substance or 

NATURE OF THE BREAD AND WINE CEASE NOT TO EXIST ; 

and truly, the image and similitude of the body 
and blood of Christ, are celebrated in the perform- 
ance of the mysteries. Evidently, therefore, is it 
sufficiently shown by us, that this which we pro- 
fess, celebrate, and take in his image, is to be 
thought in regard to Christ the Lord himself; 
so that as they [the bread and wine] pass into 
this, that is to say, into a divine substance by the 
efficacy of the Holy Spirit, their nature, never- 
theless, remaining in its own propriety, so as to 
this principle mystery itself, [of the unity of Christ's 
two natures,] whose efficiency and virtue they, [the 
consecrated bread and wine,] truly represent to us, 
it is evident from their remaining properly such, 
that Christ is one, because he remains entire and 
true." s 

4. Theodoret opposed the same heresy of Euty- 
ches in the form of dialogue between Orthodoxus 
and Eranistes, the former being the advocate of 
the Catholic doctrine, the latter being the Euty- 
chian representative. In Dialogue I, we read as 
follows: 

" Orthodoxus. — Do you know that God called his 
body bread? 

" Eranistes. — I know it. 

" 0. — He elsewhere also calls his flesh wheat. 

"E. — I know that also; unless a grain of wheat 
fall into the earth, &c. 

"0. — But in the delivery of the mysteries, he 
called the bread, his body, and that which is mixed, 
his blood. 

" E. — He did so call them. 

a 0. — But that which is his body by nature — 
hata pliusin to soma — is also to be called his body, 
and his blood is to be called blood. 

s De duabus Naturis in Christo. 



TESTIMONY OF THE POST-NICENE FATHERS. 143 

" E. — It is confessed. 

" 0. — But our Saviour clianged the names, and to 
his body he gave the name of the symbol, and to 
the symbol, the name of his body; and so having 
called himself a vine, he called the symbol, blood. 

«E. — Very right. But I desire to know the 
reason of this change of names. 

« 0. — The scope is manifest to those that are ini- 
tiated in divine things, for he would have those 
that partake of the divine mysteries, to attend, not 
to the nature of those things that are seen, but, 
upon the changing of the names, to believe the 
change made by grace. For he who called his 
body, which is so by nature, wheat and bread, and 
again termed himself a vine, has honored the 
visible symbols with the appellation of his body 
and blood, not changing their nature but adding 
grace to nature.'' T 

Dialogue II. — 

"0. — Pray tell me, of what are the mystical 
symbols offered to God by the priests, signs? 

" E.— Of the body and blood of the Lord. 

" 0. — Of his body truly, or not truly such? 

"E. — Of that which is truly [his body.] 

" 0. — Very well ; For there must be an original 
of an image ]—tes eikonos archetupon — for painters 
imitate nature, and draw the images of visible 
things. 

" E.— True. 

a 0. — If then the divine mysteries are antitypes 
of a real body — tou ontos somatos antitupa — then 
the Lord's body is still a real body, not changed 
into the nature of the Deity, but rilled with divine 
glory. 

a E. — You have seasonably introduced the dis- 
course of the divine mysteries ; for thereby I will 

TDial I, Opera Paris, 1642, torn, iv, pp. 17, IS. 



144 ON THE EUCHARIST. 

show that the body of the Lord is changed into 
another nature. Answer my question therefore. 

"0.— I will. 

"E. — What do you call the gift which is offered 
before the invocation of the priest ? 

" 0. — I may not openly declare it, for perhaps 
some here present may not be initiated. 

"E. — Answer enigmatically then. 

"0. — I call it the food that is made of a certain 
grain. 

" E. — How do you call the other symbol ? 

" 0. — By a common name that signifies a kind 
of drink. 

"E. — But how do you call it after consecration? 

"0.— -The body and blood of Christ. 

"E. — And do you believe that you partake of 
Christ's body and blood ? 

"0. — Yes, I do believe it. 

"E. — As then, the symbols of Christ's body and 
blood are one thing before the invocation of the 
priest, but after the invocation are changed and 
become something else ; so, the body of the Lord, 
after his assumption, is changed into a divine 
essence. 

" 0. — You are caught in a net of your own weav- 
ing. For, after sanctification, the mystical symbols 
do not depart from their own nature ; for they 

REMAIN STILL IN THEIR FORMER SUBSTANCE, AND FIGURE, 

and form, and may be seen and touched such as 
they were before. But they are understoood to be 
what they are made and are believed and venerated, 
as being those things which they are believed to 
be." u 

Here then we have the concurrent testimony of 
these distinguished Fathers of the Asiatic, Euro- 
pean, and African churches, expressly teaching the 

uDial. II, pp. 84, 85. 



TESTIMONY OF THE POST-NICENE FATHERS. 145 

non-departure of the substance of the bread in the 
Eucharist. 

Should it be objected that the Fathers often 
mean by the terms nature and substance no more 
than the qualities of things, which we grant; nev- 
ertheless, we affirm the objection to be not well 
made; for the dispute with the Eutychians was 
not about the qualities of Christ's body, but about 
its substance, and therefore Gelasius and Theodoret 
must have intended the substance of Christ's body. 
Otherwise their arguments were entirely inappro- 
priate, and they failed to prove what they under- 
took to do. 

The same remarks apply, essentially, to the error 
of the Apollinarians, and Chrysostom's reasoning 
against them; for the Eutychians were, after Chry- 
sostom's time, condemned by the Council of Chalce- 
don for following the doctrine of Apollinaris; and 
this Council declared in opposition to these errors, 
"That one and the same Son, our Lord Jesus 
Christ, is to be acknowledged as being perfect in 
his Godhead, and perfect in his humanity, truly 
God and truly man, with a rational soul and a 

body; that the two natures were unconfounded, 

unchanged, undivided and inseparable; that the 
distinction of the two natures was not at all done 
away by the union ; but rather that the peculiarity 
of each nature was preserved and concurred to one 
substance." (Acts, v.) It was therefore the de- 
nial of these two distinct, substantial natures in 
the one person of Christ, by the ancient heretics, 
that called forth the language above cited ; so that, 
when they undertake to prove this unchangeable- 
ness in the natures of Christ, by adducing as ex- 
amples the bread and wine of the Eucharist, and 
the water of baptism, we are to understand them 
as teaching, that although a divine and spiritual 
grace is imparted to these elements^ in virtue of 
13 



146 ON THE EUCHARIST. 

consecration to a holy use, nevertheless, they pre- 
serve their former and proper substance, "uncon- 
founded and unchanged." 

Moreover, had these ancient Fathers believed the 
doctrine of a physical change in the bread and 
wine, it would have been easy and very natural 
for these heretics to reply to their assailants: 
"Honored Sirs, This illustration of yours rather 
strengthens our conviction of the truth of our doc- 
trine. For you maintain, that, after the consecra- 
tion of the bread and wine., these substances no 
longer remain in their proper nature, but are 
changed into the real body of Jesus Christ ; in like 
manner do we believe that the human nature of 
Christ was, after his assumption, changed into the 
divine, being wholly absorbed by it." Now, had 
these keen-sighted defenders of the orthodox belief 
held such a doctrine, they would certainly have 
anticipated such an overAvhelming reply ; and 
common prudence would have restrained them 
from thus exposing themselves to be vanquished 
by their enemies. But that they did thus argue 
against the error of their enemies, and because no 
such reply was ever made, it follows, impliedly, 
that they did not believe any change of substance 
to be effected in the bread and wine of the Eucha- 
rist, in virtue of consecration. 

III. Several of the ancient Christian writers com- 
pare the change wrought in the eucharistic ele- 
ments with other like changes, in which, confess- 
edly, no transmutation of substance takes place. 

1. Iren^eus, when speaking of the Eucharist in 
opposition to the errors of the Marcionites and 
Valentinians, says: "This oblation the pure 
Church alone offers to the Maker, offering of his 
creature to Him with thanksgiving. But the Jews 
do not now offer it, for their hands are full of 
blood ; neither do they receive the Word through 



VIEWS OF TIIE ANTE-NICENE FATHERS. 147 

whom it is offered to God. Neither do all the here- 
tics ; for some of them call another the Father he- 
sides the Maker ; and, therefore, when they offer to 
him those things which, according to us, are his 
creatures, they represent him as greedy of what 
belongs to another. — But how shall it appear to 
them, that this bread, by which thanks are 
given, is the body of their Lord, and that cup his 
blood, if they deny him to be the Son of the Maker 
of the world, that is, his Word, by whom the tree 
bears its fruit, and fountains send forth their 
streams, and the earth gives, at first, the blade, 
afterward the ear, then the full grain upon the 
ear? But again, how say they that the flesh 
which is nourished by the body and blood of the 
Lord, passes to corruption and does not take life? 
Either, therefore, let them change their opinions, 
or abstain from offering those things which are 
commanded. But our opinion is agreeable to the 
Eucharist, and the Eucharist, on the other hand, 
confirms our opinion. For we offer to Him the 
things which are his, fitly declaring the communi- 
cation and unity of the flesh and Spirit. 

"■For, as the bread which is of the earth, taking 
the invocation of God, is no longer common bread, 
but the Eucharist, consisting of two things, the 
earthly and the celestial ; so also, our bodies taking 
the Eucharist are no longer corruptible, having 
hope of a resurrection." 1 

In order to be rightly understood, this passage- re- 
quires some explanation. It appears from what 
Ire^^us here and elsewhere says: 

1. That the heretics against whom he writes, 
taught that God, the Father of our Lord Jesus 
Christ, is a being distinct from the Maker of the 
world, whom they denominated Demiurgus. Nev- 

v Iren. Adv. Haeres, lib. iv, cap. 34, pp. 326, 327, Oxoa. 
1702. 



148 ON THE EUCHARIST. 

ertheless, they continued to offer to God the 
Father, the sacrifice of the Eucharist, consisting of 
bread and wine, the creatures of Demiurgus, and 
thereby, as Iren^eus declares, " offered the fruits of 
ignorance and passion and weakness, and sinned 
against the Father, reproaching him more than giv- 
ing him thanks," inasmuch as they offered to him 
what belonged to Demiurgus by right of creation ; 
and thus they represented the Father of Christ as 
requiring an offering to himself of that which 
belonged to another. 

These errorists, therefore, were guilty of the 
grossest inconsistency, nay blasphemy; for while 
they professed to honor God the Father by the ob- 
servance of the Eucharist, they dishonored him by 
representing him as covetous of what had been 
created by another, and to whom it properly be- 
longed. Our author therefore, very pointedly re- 
bukes them by exhorting either to change their 
opinion, or abstain from offering the sacrifice of the 
Eucharist to the Father of Christ. 

Now had Ieen^us held the doctrine of a physical 
change in the bread and wine,, this rebuke of his 
would have been wholly irrelevant, and the accused 
heretic might have replied: "But, according to 
your own doctrine, these elements of bread and wine 
are transubstantiated into another and different 
substance, and therefore what is offered to God the 
Father does properly and emphatically belong to 
him, he being the author of this change or new 
creation ; so that, we are consistent in our doctrine 
and practice." Such a reply would have completely 
silenced our orthodox objector, his whole argument 
being overthrown by his own doctrine. 

(2) Equally would Irekeus have placed himself 
in the hands of his opponents, had he been a tran- 
substantiationist, by demanding, u How it should 
appear to them, that the bread and cup are the body 



TESTIMONY OP THE POST-NICENE FATHERS. 149 

and blood of their Lord, if they deny him to he the 
Son of the Maker of the world." As if he had 
asked, " How shall the creatures of Demiurgns ap- 
pear to he the body and blood of the Son of another 
being, entirely distinct from this Maker of the 
world." Answer. " Being transubstantiated by God 
the Father's omnipotence, they are no longer the 
creatures of Demiurgus but of the Father." Thus 
would this learned Father of the church have been 
caught in his own net, and held at the mercy of 
his enemies. 

(3) Again, these enemies of true Christianity, 
denied the body to be capable of a future resurrec- 
tion to eternal life, being by nature corruptible. 
Our author undertakes to meet this error by stating 
their common doctrine, viz., that in the Eucharist 
our bodies are nourished by the bread and wine, to 
wit, the body and blood of Christ, which consists of 
two things, the one earthly, the other heavenly; and 
arguing hence that our bodies, being made the re- 
cipients of this gift and grace of God, have there- 
fore, hope of a future resurrection to immortality. 
Thus, he in another place says, that "our bodies 
are not only a temple, but also the temple of Christ," 
and asks, "if it is not the part of the greatest 
blasphemy, to say that the temple of God in which 
dwells the Spirit of the Father, and the members 
of Christ, participate not of salvation, but are re- 
duced to destruction." 1 

And in order to prove this precious doctrine of 
Christianity, he selects his argument from the doc- 
trine of the Eucharist, as admitted by his very oppo- 
sers, and affirms : "As the bread, which is of the 
earth, taking the invocation of God, is no longer 
common bread but the Eucharist consisting of two 
things, the earthly and the heavenly, so also, our 

^ l Lib. v, cap. vi, p. 408. 



150 ON THE EUCHARIST. 

bodies taking the Eucharist, are no longer cor- 
ruptible, having hope of a resurrection." 

His reasoning seems to be substantially as fol- 
lows : " You admit that the bread and wine, which 
are by nature corruptible things, become, in virtue 
of God's benediction, the body and blood of Christ 
consisting of the earthly bread and wine, and 
the spiritual grace communicated by God ; so do 
we affirm that our bodies, being made partakers of 
the Spirit of God, by a right participation of the 
Eucharist, are capable of the gift of God which is 
life eternal." Now the force of this illustrative 
comparison, depends upon the implied truth, and 
acknowledged belief of the persistence of the sub- 
stance of the bread and wine of the Eucharist after 
consecration. Otherwise it would have been wholly 
inapposite ; nay, it would have conduced greatly to 
strengthen the objection against the resurrection 
of the flesh, which was founded upon the supposi- 
tion, that the substance of the flesh could not con- 
sist with the spirit in another life, and therefore 
that the former must be abolished. If therefore, 
they had believed a total abolition of the material 
bread and wine in the Eucharist to take place, then 
the heretics, not Iren^ius, could say, "our opinion 
is agreeable to the Eucharist, and the Eucharist, on 
the other hand, confirms our opinion." 

Moreover, Iren^us says: "When Christ had 
given thanks, taking the cup, he drank of it ; and 
he promised to drink of the fruit of the vine with 
his disciples hereafter, proving both the earthly 
inheritance in which the new fruit of the vine 
should be drank, and the carnal resurrection of his 
disciples. For the flesh which rises again new, is 
the same as drinks the new cup. But he cannot be 
understood as drinking the fruit of the vine again, 
when constituted in his heavenly place with his 
disciples ; neither, on the other hand, are they who 



TESTIMONY OF THE POST-NICENE FATHERS. 151 

drink it without flesh, for it is proper to flesh, not 
to spirit, to drink of the vine." 1 ^ 

He evidently understands Christ to have taught 
his disciples, that the fruit of the vine which he 
would drink with them in his earthly kingdom after 
the resurrection, would be a new fruit, such, how- 
ever, as would be adapted to their new resurrection 
flesh. If therefore, Iren^us be supposed to believe 
that Christ drank of his own real blood with his 
disciples at the last supper, then he must also have 
believed this most absurd consequence, that Christ's 
real blood would be renewed after the general resur- 
rection! which is impossible. Hence he must have 
believed that Christ drank the proper fruit of the 
vine with his disciples, but not his own reaL and 
substantial blood. 

2. Cyril of Jerusalem says : " But ye are anointed 
with ointment, and are made the partakers and 
consorts of Christ. But see, lest you suppose that 
to be mere ointment; for as the bread of the Eucha- 
rist, after the invocation of the Holy Spirit, is no 
longer mere bread, but the body of Christ, so also 
this holy ointment is no longer mere ointment, 
nor, as one might say, common, after the invoca- 
tion, but the chrism of Christ." w 

Again: "For, as the bread and wine of the 
Eucharist before the holy invocation of the adorable 
Trinity, was mere bread and wine, but the invoca- 
tion being made, the bread becomes the body of 
Christ, but the wine the blood of Christ, in the 
same manner the foods of this kind, of the pomp of 
Satan, being by their own nature mere foods, are 
defiled by the invocation of demons." 2 In another 
place he exhorts : " Come to baptism, not as to mere 

1 Lib. v, cap. 33, p. 453. 

wCateches. Mystag. iii, §3, p. 289. Ed. Oxon. 1703. 
2 Idem, Catech. Mystag. i, §.4, p. 281. 



152 ON THE EUCHARIST. 

water, but to spiritual grace given with the water. 
For, as the simple offerings upon the altars are 
defiled by the invocation of idols; so, on the con- 
trary, the simple water receives a power by the 
invocation of the Holy Spirit and of Christ, and 
acquires sanctity." 3 

By these several comparisons, he evidently 
ascribes a like change to the bread and wine of the 
Eucharist, the ointment of chrism, the water of 
baptism, and the foods offered to idols, in virtue 
of the invocations made over them respectively. 
But, confessedly, no other than a change of quality 
can be allowed to take place in the last three; 
therefore, no other than a change of quality can be 
allowed according to Cyril, to take place in the 
consecrated bread and wine of the Eucharist. 

3. Gregory of Nyssa, when speaking of the water 
of baptism, as the medium by which the body is 
cleansed, observes: "And the water that washes 
confers a blessing on the body that is baptized. 
Wherefore despise not the divine bath, nor lightly 
regard it as something common, because water is 
used. For that which operates is great, and won- 
drous effects arise from it. For this holy altar 
before which we stand, is by nature common stone, 
nothing differing from other flat stones which enter 
into the construction of our walls, and beautify our 
pavements, but when it has been consecrated to the 
service of God, and has received the benediction, it 
is a holy table, an immaculate altar, no longer 
being handled by all, but by the priests only, and 
they with feelings of veneration. Again, the bread 
is previously common bread, but when the mystery 
has devoted it to holy use, it is called, and is made 
the body of Christ. In the same manner, the 
mystical oil, and the wine, are things of little worth 

3 Idem, Catecli. illnminat. iii, § 2, p. 34. 



TESTIMONY OF THE POST-NICENE FATHERS. 153 

before the benediction, but after the sanctification 
which proceeds from the Spirit, each of these oper- 
ates in an excellent manner. The same power of 
the word also makes a priest august and honorable, 
being separated from the community of the multi- 
tude, by the newness of the benediction. For, he 
was, until of late, one of the multitude and of the 
people, but is now suddenly set forth as a leader, 
a president, a teacher of piety, an instructor in the 
secret mysteries. And these things take place 
whilst he suffers no change of body or form, but 
he is in his appearance what he was, having, by 
some invisible power and grace, been changed in 
soul, for the better." x 

Here Gregory illustrates the change supposed to 
be wrought in the water of baptism, by like changes 
believed to be effected in the stone of an altar or 
table, the bread and wine of the Eucharist, the 
oil of chrism, and a priest, when consecrated for 
their respective places in the worship of God. And 
in regard to the cleric he expressly teaches, that 
no change either in his body or form was effected 
in virtue of consecration. This he undoubtedly 
believed to be true of all the other things men- 
tioned in the category ; otherwise, his illustrative 
comparison has no application, or force. 

4. Theodotus says: "Both the bread and the oil 
are sanctified by the power of the name, nor are 
they the same as by their appearance they are 
taken to be, but they are changed by the power 
into a spiritual power. So also the water which is 
purified from evil and made baptism, not only con- 
tains the less, but also takes sanctification." Y In 



x Greg. Nyss. in Baptism. Christi, Opera torn, iii, pp. 369, 
370. Paris, 1638. 

Y Theodot. Epitom. ad finem Operuni Clement. Alexand., 
p. 800. 



154 ON THE EUCHARIST. 

conclusion: From the foregoing communications, I 
trust I have fairly and clearly proved, that the 
early church knew nothing of the doctrine of tran- 
substantiation, as now taught in your church. The 
Fathers of the first six or seven centuries speak of 
the eucharistic elements, as the figure of Christ's 
broken body and shed blood. In doing this I have 
not only cited their mere words, but have also 
shown from the scope and design of their writings, 
that they necessarily teach a persistence of the na- 
tural substance of the consecrated symbols. Very 
truly, therefore, did Cardinal Cusanus write, that 
" certain of the ancient Fathers are found of this 
mind, that the bread in the sacrament is not tran- 
substantiated, nor changed in nature." * 

God grant that you also may be enabled to un- 
derstand and duly appreciate the numerous testi- 
monies adduced. 

To your careful and impartial consideration, 
therefore, the foregoing "cloud of witnesses" is 
submitted. 



remain yours, 



E. 0. P. 



1 Cusan. Exerc, lib. vi, cited by Breckinridge, Controv. 
o. 34, p. 283, 



No. 34 



LETTER IX. 

SECRET DISCIPLINE OF THE ANCIENT CHURCH. 

Dear Brother : — Your recent communication is 
a remarkable specimen of the expedients, to which 
men sometimes resort, in order to extricate them- 
selves from the difficult position, into which they 
may have brought themselves, by their imprudence. 
Apparently full of confidence in the infallibility of 
the declarations of your church, and of the perfect 
truthfulness of whatever drops from the lips, or 
flows from the pen of your teachers, you make no 
scruple to deny in toto, that the Fathers speak of 
the eucharistic elements, as the figure of Christ's 
broken body and shed blood; but now, when stub- 
born facts press heavily upon you, the attempt is 
made to rid yourself of their burden, by feeble 
attempts at explanation, and by pressing into your 
service the "Secret Discipline" of the ancient 
church, thinking this may furnish you with a solu- 
tion of all your difficulties. Nay, you seem to 
fancy that in this ancient usage you have found the 
key that interprets all the figures, symbols, and 
enigmas of the Fathers; a powerful telescope, that 
pierces the dark vista of many ages ; and presents 
to your imagination a harmonious and charming 
system of Christian doctrine, in their too often fam 
ciful and discordant productions. And, so com- 
pletely are you dazzled by this discovery, that you 
beg me, "in the name of Jesus Christ, not to pass 
it lightly over ; for a knowledge of it will fully and 
satisfactorily explain everything obscure and enig- 
matical in the writings of the Fathers, during the 



156 ON THE EUCHARIST. 

period that it was in force.'' And again you en- 
treat me, as I value my immortal soul, to give this 
thing a particular and thorough investigation ; and 
you assure me, that it will furnish "a full solution 
of all the apparent leanings of the Fathers toward 
Protestantism." 

Why, my dear Brother, I have already given 
some attention to this ancient usage, and have 
formed some idea of its origin, nature and use ; but 
it never occurred to me that my soul's salvation 
depends, in the least, upon a full and perfect un- 
derstanding of the matter. And here permit me 
to -say, that the representation which you have 
made of this subject, is altogether one-sided, and the 
conclusion which you have drawu from it, wholly 
unwarranted from the facts in the case. 

For your entire argument proceeds upon the false 
assumption, that there was one grand secret ob- 
served by the ancient church, and no other. And 
this* is more than intimated by you in the very 
statement of the subject, when you denominate it, 
"The Discipline of the Secret." That secret is no 
other, according to you, than transubstantiation, a 
doctrine so full of mystery, incomprehensibility, 
and divinity, that it could not with safety be di- 
vulged to the Christian novices, lest perchance they 
should be offended at it, and turn back to idolatry. 
This appears to be the substance of your reasoning. 

As you have therefore treated this whole subject 
in a manner so partial and unsatisfactory, it de- 
volves upon me to present it in its true light, and 
thereby show you the falsity of your deductions. 

This topic I find ably and somewhat fully dis- 
cussed by Bingham in his "Antiquities of the 
Christian Church : " I propose therefore to present 
you with this disquisition with such modifications 
as seem proper to its full comprehension, and ap- 
propriate to a fraternal correspondence. 



THE SECRET DISCIPLINE. 157 

I. He observes: a As to its original tlie learned 
Albaspin^eus (a bishop of the Romish church, who 
rejects the Secret Discipline of the ancient church 
as an insufficient proof of the doctrine of transub- 
stantiation,) has rightly observed, 'that in the 
Apostolic age, and some time after, they were not 
so very strict in this discipline of concealing their 
sacred mysteries from the knowledge of the cate- 
chumens.' For he thus argues against the an- 
tiquity of the book called the Apostolic Constitutions: 
'The last words/ says he, 'which forbid these eight 
books do plainly show that they were not written 
m the first age; for the Christians of the first age 
did never make any scruple of publishing their 
mysteries, as appears from the writings of Justin 
Martyr.' A 

" Mr. Albertine observes the same out of Atiie- 
nagoras and Tatian. 1 And Daille joins in opinion 
with Albaspin^us, and cites his authority with ap- 
probation. 2 And Basnage is so far from thinking 
that the Apostles concealed their mysteries from 
catechumens, that he supposes they administered 
the sacraments in their presence. 8 

"The beginning of this discipline seems to have 
been about the time of Tertullian ; for he is the 
first writer that makes any mention of it. He says, 
there was a 'secrecy and silence observed in all 
their mysteries.' And he blames the heretics of 
his own times for not regarding something of this 
discipline." c 

II. Having learned something of the origin of 
this discipline, our next inquiry may very properly 
be: What were the tilings concealed? 

A Albasp. Observat., lib i, cap. 13, p. 38. . 

1 Albertin. de Eucharist, lib. ii, p. 709. 

2 Dalleus de Scriptis Ignatii, lib. i, cap. 22, p. 142. 
B Basnag. Excrcitat. in Baron., p. 419. 

c Tertul. Apol., cap. 7. 

14 



158 ON THE EUCHARIST. 

1. The manner of administering baptism was one 
of them. This appears from a canon of the first 
Council of Orange, in which it was ordered that 
"Catechumens are never to be admitted to the bap- 
tistry." And Basil mentions the triple baptizing 
and the other rites of baptism, as things "which it 
was not lawful to the uninitiated to look upon." E 
Augustine asks: "What is that which is kept 
secret and not made public in the church ? The 
sacrament of baptism, and the sacrament of the 
Eucharist. Even the pagans may see our good 
works, but the sacraments are concealed from 
them." F In like manner, Gregory Nazianzen, speak- 
ing of baptism, says: "You have heard so much 
of the mystery as we are allowed to speak publicly 
in the ears of all; and the rest you shall hear pri- 
vately, which you must retain secret within your- 
self, and keep under the seal of baptism." 

From which it appears, "that although the 
ancients acquainted the catechumens with the doc- 
trine of baptism, so far as to make them understand 
the spiritual nature and design of it, yet they never 
admitted them to the sight of the outward ceremony, 
nor so much as to hear any plain discourse about 
the manner of its administration, till they were 
fitted and prepared for the actual reception of it." 

2. The same discipline of secrecy was observed 
in reference to the unction of chrism, sometimes 
called confirmation. Basil mentions it in connec- 
tion with baptism and the Eucharist, all of which 
it was not deemed lawful for the catechumens to 
look upon. H And Innocent I, writing to another 

d Concil. Arausicanum I, Can. 19. 

e Basil, de Spiritu Sancto, cap. xxvii, p. 76. Bened. Edit 
Paris, 1839. 

f Aug. Com. in Psal. ciii. 
<*N"az. Orat. xl, torn. 1, p. 672. 
B Basil, Ubi Supra citat. 



THE SECRET DISCIPLINE. 159 

bishop about confirmation, and the form of words 
used in the administration of it, says: u I cannot 
speak the words lest I should rather seem to 
betray the mystery than answer the question pro- 
posed." 1 

3. a A third thing which they concealed from the 
catechumens was the ordination of priests. The 
Council of Laodicea has a canon to this purpose, 
' that ordinations should not be performed in the 
presence of the hearers,' that is, the catechumens. 1 
And Chrysostom, speaking of this office and the 
solemn prayers used at the consecration, delivers 
himself in an obscure and covert way, because of 
the catechumens 'He that ordains,' says he, ' in- 
vites the prayers of the church, and they join their 
suffrages, and echo forth what the initiated know ; 
for it is not lawful to disclose all things before the 
uninitiated.' " J 

4. "A fourth thing which they concealed from 
the catechumens, was the public Liturgy, or solemn 
prayers of the church ; for one rank of the catechu- 
mens, the audientes or hearers, were permitted only 
to stay and hear the sermon, but not any prayers 
of the church. Another sort, called kneelers, or 
prostrators, had the prayers of the church particu- 
larly for themselves, but no others. And the Com- 
petentes stayed only to hear the prayers offered up 
for themselves and the Energumens, 2 and then were 
dismissed. They might not stay to hear so much 
as the prayers for the Penitents, much less the 
prayers for the church militant, or any others pre- 

1 Innocent, Epist. i, ad Decentium Eugubin, cap. 3. 

1 Concil. Laodicen, Can. 5, Binii Hist. Gen. Concil., torn, i, 
p. 242. 

J Chrys. Horn, xviii, in 2 Cor. § 3, torn, x, p. 670. Paris, 
1838. 

2 The Energumens were persons supposed to be troubled 
by evil spirits. 



160 ON THE EUCHARIST. 

ceding the communion. But before all these, the 
usual word of command was given by the deacons, 
or sacred heralds of the church, Ne quis audientum, 
or Ite, missa est. Catechumens, depart. 

"From this it is easy to collect farther, that the 
solemn office of the absolution of penitents was 
never performed in the presence of the catechumens. 
For the time of absolution was not till all others 
were dismissed, except the penitents themselves who 
were to be absolved, which was immediately before 
their going to the altar to begin the communion 
service, as seems to be clear from those words of 
Optatus; 1 where he speaks of it as the common 
custom, both in the church and among the Dona- 
tists, to give imposition of hands for absolution im- 
mediately before their going to say the Lord's 
Prayer at the altar. All these things therefore 
were kept secret from the catechumens ; for they 
were never suffered to be hearers or spectators of 
any part of them." 

According to the Apostolic constitutions the cate- 
chumens, energumens, and those about to be bap- 
tized, were all dismissed before the prayer for the 
penitents and their restoration to the blessing of 
the church. 2 

5. As the Eucharist was the great mystery in 
the Christian service, so the ancients were very 
careful to conceal the manner of its celebration from 
the catechumens. This is evident from those pas- 
sages of Augustine and Basil before quoted, and 
from Chrysostom, who says: "We shut, the doors 
when we celebrate the mysteries and exclude the 
uninitiated." K " Moreover let the door be watched, 

i Optat. contra Parmen, lib. ii, p. 57. 

3 See Apostolic Constitutions, book viii, chapters, 6, 7, 8 
and 9. Edited by Irah Chase, D. D., 1848. 

K Homil. xxiii al xxiv, in Matt. torn, vii, p. 327, § 3. 



THE SECRET DISCIPLINE. 161 

lest there come in any unbeliever, or one not yet 
initiated; 1 and let the Deacons stand at the doors 
of the men, and the Sub-Deacons at those of the 
women, that no one go out, nor a door he opened, 
although it he for one of the faithful, at the time of 
the oblation." 2 

Bingham tells us that Casatjbon makes the follow- 
ing observation upon this topic, which the learned 
Albertixe takes from him and defends strenuously : 
" That whereas there are three things in the Eucha- 
rist: 1. The symbols, or sacred elements of bread 
and wine, 2, The things signified by them, and 3, 
The rites of celebration; that which the ancients 
labored chiefly to conceal from the catechumens, 
was not the things signified, but only the symbols 
or outward signs, and the rites and manner of cele- 
bration. For they made no scruple to call the 
Eucharist by the name of Christ's body and blood 
before the catechumens, at the same time that they 
would not call it bread and wine, or speak particu- 
larly of the form and manner of administering it, 
as Albertinus proves out of Theodoret and many 
others. Which shows, that the reason of concealing 
the mystery from the catechumens was not the 
belief of transubstantiation, as the Komanists pre- 
tend ; for then they would have chosen rather to 
conceal the names of Christ's body and blood than 
the names of the outward symbols, and the mystical 
rites of celebration ; the latter of which they studi- 
ously concealed, but not the former." 

6. The ancients also concealed from the know- 
ledge of the more imperfect catechumens, the more 
sublime doctrines of Christianity ; such as the 
mystery of the Trinity and incarnation of Christ, 

1 Apostolic Constitutions, book ii, ch. 57. 

2 Idem, book viii, ch. 11, Chase's Edition. Vide et Epi- 
phan. Haeres. 42, No. 3; Hieron. Com. in Gal. vi; et alios 
passim. 

14* 



162 ON THE EUCHARIST. 

the creed of the church, and the Lord's prayer, 
which the catechumens did not learn till just before 
their baptism. Thus Theodoret says: "We do not 
teach this prayer to the uninitiated, but to the 
Mystagogi. For no one that is not baptized can 
presume to say : Our father who art in heaven, not 
yet having received the gift of adoption. But he 
that is made partaker of baptism may call God his 
father, as being adopted among the sons of grace." L 
Chrysostom also expresses himself very clearly on 
this point, saying: "He who calls God, father, 
confesses by one and the same epithet; the remis- 
sion of sins, removal of punishment, righteousness, 
sanctiiication, redemption, adoption, the inherit- 
ance, brotherhood with the only-begotten and the 
abundant supply of the spirit, For it is not possi- 
ble that he who has not obtained all these good 
things should call God, father." M "For that this 
prayer belongs to the faithful, both the laws of the 
church and the beginning of the prayer teach ; 
because the uninitiated cannot call God, father." N 

For such reasons they never taught the Lord's 
prayer to any of the catechumens, except the most 
advanced of them, the competentes, a few days 
before their baptism; as we learn from Augustine, 
who exhorts: " Learn therefore this prayer which 
ye are to repeat eight days hence when ye are to 
be baptized." 4 

Sosomen gives it as a reason why he did not insert 
the words of the Nicene Creed into his history, 
"that probably many uninitiated persons might 
read his book, who ought not to read or hear the 

l Theodoret, Heeret. Fabul. lib. v, c. 28, torn, iv, p. 316. 
m Chrys. Hornil. xix al xx, in Matt. § 4, torn, vii, p. 284 
NIbid. §5, p. 287. 
4 Aug. Homil. xlii, ex. 50, tom. x, p. 195. 



THE SECRET DISCIPLINE. 163 

Creed." 1 And Jerome says: "There is a custom 
amongst us of this kind, that we publicly teach for 
forty days the holy and adorable Trinity to those 
who are to be baptized." 2 "It is not lawful," says 
Clement of Alexandria, "to relate to the profane 
the mysteries of the Word." 3 

III. What were the true reasons of this secret 
discipline of the ancient church ? 

1. "And the first is that the plainness and sim- 
plicity of the Christian rites might not be despised 
by the uninitiated, or give occasion to scandal to them 
before they were thoroughly instructed in regard to 
the nature of the mysteries. For both Jews and 
Gentiles, from whom Christian converts were made 
catechumens, were apt to deride the nakedness and 
simplicity of the Christian religion, as void of those 
pompous ceremonies and sacrifices, with which the 
pagan religions abounded. The Christian religion 
prescribed but one washing in water, and one 
oblation of bread and wine, instead of that multi- 
tude of bloody sacrifices, which the other religions 
commanded. Therefore, lest the plainness of these 
few ceremonies should offend the prejudiced minds 
of the catechumens, before they were well instructed 
about them, the Christian teachers usually adorned 
these mysteries with great and magnificent titles, 
such as would convey noble ideas to the minds of 
men concerning their spiritual effects, but conceal- 
ing their other names, lest the simplicity of the 
things should offend them. When they spake of 
the Eucharist, they never mentioned bread and 
wine, but the sacrifice of the body arid blood of 
Christ ; and styled baptism, illumination and life, 

1 Sozomen, lib. 1, cap. 20, et Hieron. Epist. 61, ad Pamruach, 
cap. 9. 

2 Hieron. Epist. CI, ad Pam. cap. 4. 
s Clem. Alex. Stromut. lib. v, cap. 9, p. 680. 



164 ON THE EUCHARIST. 

the sacrament of faith and remission of sins, saying 
little in the meantime of the outward elements of 
water. This was one plain reason why they denied 
catechumens the sight of their sacraments, and 
always spoke in mystical terms before them." In 
proof of the correctness of these remarks of the 
learned Bingham, the following ancient testimonies 
may he offered. 

After quoting our Saviour's words, "Give not 
that which is holy to the dogs, nor cast your pearls 
before swine/' Chrysostom observes : " They feign 
gentleness that they may learn [our secret myste- 
ries ;] but when they learn thein, being different 
from other people, they turn them into ridicule, 
make a mock of them, and laugh at us as deceived. . . . 
Wherefore it is no small advantage that they re- 
main in ignorance ; for then they do not despise in 
the same manner. But if they learn, the injury is 
two-fold; for they do not thence bear fruit, but are 
injured the more ; and to thee they furnish innu- 
merable troubles. Let them hear, who shamelessly 
couple all things together and make things vener- 
able to be despised. For when we celebrate the 
mysteries, we for this reason shut the doors and 
exclude the uninitiated ; not that we find any in- 
firmity in the mysteries, but because the multitude 
are yet too imperfectly disposed toward them." 

Athanasitjs, writing in opposition to some who 
made a public display of the eucharistic sacrament, 
regards the practice as a violation of our Lord's 
command, "Give not that which is holy to the 
dogs, neither cast your pearls before swine," and 
adds : " We must not make a public display of the 
mysteries to the uninitiated, in order that the 
Greeks, being kept in ignorance, may not ridicule, 

o Chrys. Horn, xxiii, al xxiv, in Matt. § 3, torn, vii, pp. 326, 
327. Paris, 1836. 



THE SECRET DISCIPLINE. 165 

and that the catechumens may not he scandalized 
through curiosity." p 

" These mysteries," says Cyril of Jerusalem, " the 
church now relates to him who has changed from 
the catechumens. Nor is it a custom to relate them 
to the heathen; for we mention rot the mysteries 
of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy 
Spirit, to a Gentile; neither do we speak clearly of 
the mysteries in the presence of the catechumens ; 
but we often say many things covertly, that the 
faithful who know may understand, and that those 
who are ignorant may not he injured." Q 

" But if any one he a partaker [of the Eucharist] 
through ignorance," says the Apostolic Constitu- 
tions, "instruct him quickly, and initiate him, that 
he may not go out a despiser." 

And the fourth Council of Toledo orders : " That 
henceforth no Jew should he obliged by force to 
believe." "But those who have some time since 
been compelled to come to Christianity, — as was 
done in the times of the most religious prince, Sise- 
but, because they have evidently been associated 
with the divine sacraments, have received the grace 
of baptism, have been anointed with chrism, and 
made partakers of the Lord's body and blood, — ■ 
must be compelled to hold fast the faith which they 
have received, whether by force or necessity, that 
the name of the Lord be not blasphemed, and the 
faith which they have received be esteemed vile 
and contemptible." 11 

2. A second reason for this discipline was, that a 
greater veneration might be conciliated for the 

p Athanasii Apolog. ad Imp. Constant, vol. i, p. 731. Paris. 
1627. 

Q Cyril, Hierosol. Catech. Ilium, vi, p. 60. Paris, 1631. 
^ R Concil. Toletannm iv, Canon 56; Binii Histor. Gen. Con» 
ciliorum, torn, ii, part 2, p. 354. 



166 ON THE EUCHARIST. 

mysteries in the minds of men on account of their 
ignorance of them, as we learn from Basil, who 
says : " The Fathers knew well that the veneration 
of the mysteries was preserved by silence. — Moses, 
the great counsellor, did not make all parts of the 
sanctuary accessible to all, but kept the profane 
without the sacred enclosures, — well perceiving by 
his wisdom the real contempt had for what was 
trite and of itself apprehensible, but that the 
greatest regard was somehow naturally joined to 
what was most removed and rare. In the same 
manner, the Apostles and Fathers who from the 
beginning [?] enacted those things pertaining to 
the churches, preserved the veneration for the mys- 
teries by secrecy and silence. For that which is 
exposed to the popular and vulgar ear, is no mys- 
tery at all. The reason of the delivery of these 
without writing is this, that the knowledge of the 
dogmas which appears very contemptible to the 
multitude, may not be despised on account of famil- 
iarity." s 

And Augustine says: "You ought not to won- 
der, dear brethren, that in these mysteries we say 
nothing concerning the mysteries ; that we do not 
immediately interpret what we deliver. For in 
things so holy and divine, we observe the honor of 
silence." 1 

3. Another reason given by Augustine why the 
sacraments were not delivered to the catechumens 
was, that their curiosity might be excited, so that 
they should the more ardently desire them, and 
hasten to come to an experimental knowledge of 
them. He asks: "Why then could not the disci- 
ples bear aught of those things which were written 

s Basil liber de Spiritu Sancto, cap. xxvii, vol. iii, pp. 76, 
77, Paris, 1839. 

1 Aug. Sermo. i, mter. 40, Edit, a Sirmondo, torn. x. 



THE SECRET DISCIPLINE. 167 

after the ascension of the Lord, although the Holy 
Spirit was not yet sent to them, when now the cat- 
echumens may bear all things, the Holy Spirit not 
yet being received? Because, although the sacra- 
ments of the faithful are not delivered to these, it 
is not for this, that they cannot bear them, but< 
that they may so much the more ardently desire ' 
them as they are the more honorably concealed 1 , 
from them." T Again: "The Jews see that the] 
priesthood according to Aaron has now perished ; 
and they acknowledge not the priesthood according 
to Melchisedec. To the faithful I speak; if the 
catechumens do not understand this, let them put 
away their slothfulness and hasten to a knowledge 
of it. There is no need therefore of disclosing the 
mysteries ; the Scriptures intimate to you what is 
the priesthood according to the order of Melchis- 
edec." u 

4. From the passages cited from Jerome and 
Cyril of Jerusalem, we may infer as a fourth reason 
of this ancient ecclesiastical usage, that the inex- 
perienced minds of the Gentile converts, were not 
well qualified to receive the more profound doc- 
trines of the Christian religion, such as the Trinity 
and the Incarnation. 

5. Some of their sacred things were kept from 
the knowledge of the uninitiated, because the 
Christian teachers considered them inapproriate 
to the condition of those who had not yet been in- 
troduced into the church by baptism. Such were 
the Lord's Prayer and the Creed. 

6. From the passages cited from Chrysostom, 
Athanasius, Cyril, and other authorities, we farther 
collect, that this secret discipline was observed by 

T Aug.. Expositio in Evang. loan., Tract, xcvii, torn, ix, p. 
190, Paris, 1635. 

u Enarratio in Psal. cix, torn, viii, p. 527. 



168 ON THE EUCHARIST. 

the early Christians, both for the good of those 
who were excluded from the sight of their sacra- 
ments, and to save themselves the annoyance of the 
despising heathen. 

Such, my Brother, was the origin, nature, and rea- 
sons of the secret discipline, as we gather from the 
records of the ancient church. In concluding the dis- 
cussion of this subject, it only remains to us to deter- 
mine, from these data, what bearing the discijplina 
arcani has upon the testimonies produced from the 
ancient Fathers, and briefly to consider the conclu- 
sion deduced from it by yourself. 

1. We have seen that this discipline of secrecy 
cannot, according to the opinion of several learned 
men, both Eomanist and Protestant, be traced be- 
yond the age of Tertullian, who flourished about 
two hundred years after the Christian era. Justin 
Martyr, who preceded Tertullian only about fifty 
years, in his Apology for the Christians to Anto- 
ninus Pius, makes no scruple to describe very clearly 
to the Emperor the manner of celebrating the Eu- 
charist, and the accompanying prayers, and even 
to repeat the description. Nay, he speaks of bap- 
tism with water and the incarnation of our Lord 
Jesus Christ. This quite spoils that fancied rea- 
soning of yours, wherein you attempt to fasten this 
discipline of " utmost secrecy" upon the Apostles 
themselves. 

2. We cannot urge the secret discipline of the 
ancient church, in proof of the Fathers speaking of 
the doctrine of the Eucharist in a manner obscure 
and enigmatical ; for it was not so much the doc- 
trine of this sacrament that was concealed as the 
manner of celebrating it, and the nature of the ele- 
ments used. Besides, if we introduce this usage as 
an essential element in interpreting their descrip- 
tions of the Eucharist, then it is but fair to extend 
its application so as to use it in the exposition of 



THE SECRET DISCIPLINE. 169 

what they say in regard to all those other things 
which were secretly observed, such as the doctrine 
of the Trinity, the incarnation of Christ, baptism 
and the rest. Now if it he confessed as a general 
truth, that these ancient writers spoke in language 
"ambiguous and enigmatical" when they dis- 
coursed upon the Trinity, the incarnation of Christ, 
baptism, the ordination of the clergy, the Lord's 
Prayer, the Creed of the church, and those other 
kindred subjects which have been enumerated, then 
the darkness of uncertainty broods over the whole 
face of patristic literature; and it may be justly 
doubted whether Ave now have any correct know- 
ledge of the faith of the ancient church. For if we 
must not take their language in its ordinary and 
proper sense, when they call the eucharistic bread 
and wine the figure, symbols, image, type, antitype 
and signs of Christ's body and blood, and further 
attribute to these emblems such qualities as pertain 
only to the earthly and corruptible, and even de- 
clare that they do not depart from their natural 
and proper substance; how shall it appear that 
they must be understood literally and properly, 
when they assert the consubstantiality of the three 
persons in the Godhead, the incarnation of Christ, 
or the baptism with water? If the language of the 
Fathers which I have cited, does not prove their 
belief of a figurative presence of Christ's flesh and 
blood in the Eucharist, then I affirm that their 
words prove just nothing, and therefore their testi- 
mony is unreliable and valueless on any point of 
controverted doctrine. For they affirm nothing in 
plainer terms than they do, that the eucharistic ele- 
ments are the figure of Christ's broken body and 
shed blood. But, believing the Fathers to have 
been men of intelligence and moral honesty, I con- 
clude that when they give a sober delineation of 
the Eucharist, or anv other Christian doctrine, they 
15 



170 ON THE EUCHARIST. 

used words in their common acceptation, and in- 
tended to be understood as meaning what they 
taught. 

Again, were we to allow that the Fathers spoke 
in language obscure and unintelligible, when they 
addressed the unbaptized,, this would by no means 
prove a general ambiguity in their words upon 
other occasions. Some of their lectures were origi- 
nally addressed to the initiated, where no such 
ambiguousness was required, or would have been 
appropriate. Other parts of their productions were 
written in the form of commentary, where sound 
sense and sober description are especially called 
for : other works of theirs are elaborate defences of 
the Christian religion against the artfully subtle 
and malignant objections brought against it by its 
bitterest enemies: others also were written in the 
form of friendly and argumentative epistles to 
brother bishops and beloved churches. In such 
productions, intended for the instruction and use 
of all advanced Christians, the Fathers did doubt- 
less intend to give, according to their respective 
ability, a truthful and intelligible representation of 
Christian doctrine. I do not mean to say, how- 
ever, that they were always methodical in the 
arrangement of their thoughts, consistent and clear 
in their reasonings, or convincing in their conclu- 
sions ; but I do insist, that on the subject of the 
Eucharist, they did not so depart from their usual 
style and mode of argumentation, as to form a 
general exception to their ordinary method of 
treating all the. other leading doctrines of Christi- 
anity. 

The representation which has now been made of 
the " Secret Discipline," might seem incomplete, 
were the passages quoted by you^ and the conclu- 
sions deduced from them, to be unnoticed. Let us 
therefore consider those of them which relate to the 



THE SECRET DISCIPLINE. 171 

Sacrament of the Eucharist. 1. Tertullian is 
cited, as saying of those who unjustly accused the 
early Christians of perpetrating horrible crimes in 
their secret assemblies: "Who are those who have 
made known to the world these pretended crimes ? 
Are they those who are accused? But how could 
it be so, since it is the common law of all mysteries 
to keep them secret? If they themselves made no 
discoveries, it must have been made by strangers: 
but how could they have had any knowledge f 
them, since the profane are excluded from the sight 
of the most holy mysteries, and those carefully 
selected who are permitted to be spectators." And 
to a wife he says: " You would by marrying an in- 
fidel fall into this fault, that the pagans would 
come to the knowledge of our mysteries. Will not 
your husband know what you taste in secret before 
any other food ; and if he perceives bread, will he 
not imagine that it is what is so much spoken 
of?" 2 

2. The Synod of Alexandria, held A. D. 340, in 
their sy nodical letter to the orthodox, say: "They 
(the Eusebians) are not ashamed to celebrate the 
mysteries before the catechumens and perhaps even 
before the pagans; forgetting that it is written, 
that we should hide the mystery of the king ; and 
in contempt of the precept of our Lord, that we 
must not place holy things before dogs, nor pearls 
before swine. For it is not lawful to show the 
mysteries openly to the uninitiated; less through 
ignorance, they scoff at them, and the catechumens 
be scandalized through indiscreet curiosity." 3 

3. St. Basil you quote as asking, " Which of the 
Saints has left us in writing, the words of invoca- 

i Tertul. Apol. cap. vii, p. 674, Paris, 1580. 

2 Idem, ad Uxorem. lib. ii, cap. 5, p. 430. 

3 Concil. Gen., torn, ii, p. 547. 



172 ON THE EUCHARIST 

tion in the consecration of the bread, and of the 
eucharistic cup ?" 2 

4. And St. Leno, saying to the Christian women : 
"Know you not that the sacrifice of the unbe- 
liever is public, but yours secret ? That any one 
inay freely approach his, whilst even for Christians, 
if they are not consecrated, it would be a sacrilege 

TO CONTEMPLATE yours ? " 2 

5. Also, St. Augustine saying to the catechumen 
Honoratus, that, " When once he has been baptized, 
he will know where, when, and how the great 
sacrament, the sacrifice of the new law is offered. 
Ask a catechumen if he eats the flesh of the Son 
of man and drinks his blood ? he knows not what 
you mean. The catechumens know not what the 
Christians receive ; the manner in which the flesh 
of our Lord is received is a thing concealed from 
them." 3 

6. And Gaudentius discoursing, "We shall at 
present speak only of those which cannot be ex- 
plained before the catechumens, but which notwith- 
standing it is necessary to disclose to the newly 
baptized. — This splendid Easter night requires our 
instruction to be adapted rather to the circum- 
stances of the time, than to the lesson of the day, in 
order that the neophytes may, for the first time, be 
taught in what manner we partake of the paschal 
sacrifice." 4 

These are the only passages cited which appear 
to have a reference to the Sacrament of the Eucha- 
rist. You will perceive that I have taken the 
liberty to capitalize those words which seem to in- 
dicate the nature of the secrecy spoken of, which 

1 Basil de Spiritu Sancto, cap. 27, torn, iii, p. 55. 

2 De Continentia. 

3 Aug. Tract, xi, in loan., torn, ix, Paris, 1536. 

4 Gaudent. Explan.Exod. ad Neophyt. 



THE SECRET DISCIPLINE. 173 

most plainly consists of a concealment of the ele- 
ments used, and of the rites and ceremonies em- 
ployed in their consecration and administration ; 
but not one word is said in them all of the incom- 
prehensibility of the doctrine involved, or of the 
intellectual inability of the catechumens to under- 
stand them; which difficulties certainly should 
have been mentioned, had they been believed to 
exist. St. Augustine, however, settles this point 
when he says: "The sacraments of the faithful 
were not delivered to the catechumens, not because 
they could not bear them, but that they might so 
much the more ardently desire them, as they were 
the more honorably concealed from them." 

I greatly wonder that such passages as you have 
quoted, should be produced, in order to account for 
the Fathers calling the eucharistic elements of 
bread and wine, the figure of Christ's broken body 
and shed blood; when not one of them ever thought 
of offering this secret usage as the reason of so de- 
nominating these emblems. 

From the representation which has now been 
made, you cannot but perceive your utter failure at 
proof, in your attempt to account, from the secret 
discipline of the ancient church, for denominating 
the eucharistic elements the figure of Christ's 
broken body and shed blood. 

For your whole argument proceeds upon the as- 
sumption, that there was but one thing kept within 
the veil of secrecy, and that one thing was the doc- 
trine of the Eucharist; which was deemed too 
unintelligible and mysterious to be understood by 
the inexperienced catechumens. But your premises 
being proved untrue, your conclusion also must be 
false. You must therefore consent to interpret the 
Fathers as we do other ancient writers ; by com- 
paring one passage with another of the same writer, 
one author with another, and all of them with 
15* 



174 ON THE EUCHARIST. 

reference to the general scope and spirit of their 
productions. We must not select a few such pas- 
sages only, as seem to favor our preconceived opin- 
ions, and neglect others of a different kind, if we 
wish to arrive at just results in our examinations ; 
but we must take them together, and give them 
such an exposition as shall best accord with their 
general scope and design ; otherwise, we shall fail 
to ascertain their true meaning, and he very likely 
to attribute to these ancient writers consequences 
false and contradictory. 

Be your interpretation of the writings of antiquity 
what they may, let us ever have it in mind, that 
truth is eternal, and therefore incapable of being 
changed, much less destroyed by the instrument 
through which it is viewed. 

Your true Friend and Brother, 

E. 0. P. 



LETTEK X. 

SEVERAL TERMS APPLIED TO THE EUCHARIST NOW USED 
BY ROMANISTS IN A SENSE DIFFERENT FROM THAT 
GIVEN THEM BY THE ANCIENT FATHERS. 

Dear Brother: — In the same communication in 
which you undertake to account from the secret 
discipline, for the Fathers' "use of enigmatical 
and ambiguous language, known and perfectly 
understood by the initiated, and at the same time, 
dark and mysterious to those who were not," you 
are pleased to inform me, that " in a certain sense, 
and so far as it does not affect or qualify the belief 
in a Keal Presence, the Catholic may, with perfect 
consistency, apply the words, figure or symbol to 
the Eucharist, seeing that every sacrament as such, 
must be an outward sign, and consequently a figure 
or symbol." 

But if the sacrament of the Eucharist " must be 
an outward sign, and consequently a figure or 
symbol," how do the Fathers speak "ambiguously 
and enigmatically" when they so denominate it? 
What need is there to introduce the secret disci- 
pline of the ancients to account for ambiguities and 
enigmas that have no existence? For if the sacra- 
ment of the Eucharist must be a figure or symbol, 
then it is properly such, and it is no ambiguity or 
impropriety so to call it. "And so far as it does not 
affect or qualify the belief in a Real Presence, the 
Catholic may, with perfect consistency, apply the 
words Figure or Symbol to the Eucharist." But 
suppose that it should so affect his belief in a Real 
Presence, that he can neither understand nor be 



176 ON THE EUCHARIST. 

made to believe that the Eucharistic elements are 
"both the real body and blood of Christ, and, at the 
same time, a figure or symbol of them ; must he, as 
your language intimates, cease to apply these words 
to them? Must he cease to call things by their 
proper names, if by so calling them his faith is 
endangered? And does your doctrine require the 
signification of things to be changed ? By so doing, 
Clement tells us that all true doctrine is over- 
turned ; and I fully believe it. Or do you mean that 
the signification of the terms figure and symbol, as 
applied to the Eucharist, depends upon the doctrine 
of the "Real Presence ? If so, you equally disturb the 
foundation of intelligible faith, and unsettle and 
overturn all true doctrine. For if language has no 
stable meaning independent of Christian doctrine, 
then I know of no way by which to arrive at any 
determinate knowledge of what is taught in the 
New Testament Scriptures. 

But you do not claim the honor of being the ori- 
ginal propounder of the evident incompatibility of 
denominating the Eucharistic elements the real 
body and blood of Christ, and, at the same time, a 
figure or symbol of that body and blood ; for you 
quote the "clear words" of Pascal, which, you 
think, "cannot but be interesting to me, and will 
help to elucidate my objections." He says:' "We 
believe that the substance of bread being changed 
into that of the body of our Lord Jesus Christ, he 
is really present in the Holy Sacrament. This is 
the Catholic faith which comprehends those two 
verities which seem opposed. The heresy of the 
present day, does not conceive that this sacrament 
contains altogether both the presence of Jesus 
Christ and his figure, and that he is both a sacri- 
fice, and a commemoration of the sacrifice; it 
believes that we cannot admit the one of these veri- 
ties without excluding the other. For this reason 



THE TERMS FIGURE, SYMBOL, &C. 177 

they strongly urge that this sacrament is figura- 
tive ; and in this they are not heretic. They think 
that we exclude this verity, and thence it conies 
that they make us so many ohjections upon those 
passages of the Fathers which say thus. In fine, 
they deny the Real Presence, and in this they are 
heretics." These words, I admit, are " clear" 
enough ; hut they contain nothing but mere asser- 
tion, and serve not in the least to remove the 
" objections" alluded to. There is no need how- 
ever of crossing the Atlantic to find a "clear" asser- 
tion of a reputedly able man. 

Mr. John Hughes furnishes us with the same sort 
of argument, in his controversy with Mr. Brecken- 
ridge, when speaking of Protestants, he says: 
" They may say that the Fathers often applied the 
terms, figure, sign, symbol, antitype, bread and wine, 
to the Eucharist even after consecration. It is true 
they applied these terms to the exterior appear- 
ances — but this only proves that under these signs, 
symbols, &c, they believed the substantial existence 
of the thing signified, viz: the flesh and blood of 
Jesus Christ." 

II. The application of these terms by the Fathers 
to the Eucharist after consecration being confessed, 
my task is limited to the consideration of the 
affirmation, "they applied these terms to the exte- 
rior appearances ;" which necessarily implies that 
they did not apply the terms, figure, symbol, type, 
antitype, image and sign, to the substance of the 
elements. 

In the first place I remark, that such an appli- 
cation of the terms under consideration is unsus- 
tained by any conventional and proper signification 
common to them all. I say, common to them all; 
for these several terms being indiscriminately 
applied to one and the same thing, are evidently 
employed in some sense in which they all agree. 



178 ON THE EUCHARIST. 

Now the only signification which they all can possi- 
bly be allowed to bear as applied to the Eucharist, 
is evidently that of symbolical, or typical representa- 
tion. 

2. In this sense the Fathers use these same words 
when applied to other things besides the Eucharist. 
Thus, Justin Martyr calls the paschal lamb a type 
of Christ ; the offering of fine flour which was made 
for those who were cleansed of their leprosy, a type 
of the Eucharist; and the twelve bells upon the 
High Priest's garments, a symbol of the twelve 
Apostles. A Clement of Alexandria tells us that 
"in Diospolis, a city of Egypt, there was delineated 
upon the temple called Pylon, a boy, which was a 
symbol of generation ; an old man, which was a 
symbol of corruption ; and a hawk, which was a 
symbol of God." * Origen regards Joshua as the 
type of Christ, 2 and the body of Christ as a type of 
the Church. 3 And Cyril of Alexandria calls Jonah 
a sign of Christ's resurrection. 4 

It is needless to multiply examples in a matter 
so plain. No one for a moment can suppose these 
respective authors intended to say that Christ 
existed under the appearance of a lamb ; the Apos- 
tles under the appearance of tinkling bells ; God 
under the appearance of a hawk ; or the resurrec- 
tion under the appearance or history of Jonah. 

3. These terms the Fathers apply to the substance 
of the bread and wine, and not to their mere ap- 
pearances, or accidents. Tertullian says : " The 
bread which he took and distributed to his disciples, 

a Justin Martyr, Dialog, cum Tryphone, pp. 218-220. 
Lond. 1732. 

1 Clement, Alex. Stromat, lib. v, cap. vii, p. 670. Oxon. 
1715. 

2 Origen, Com. in Joan, torn, vi, No. 26. 

3 Idem, torn, x, No. 20. 

4 Cyril, Alex. Com. in Joan, lib. v, c. 4. 



&c. 179 

that he made his body, by saying, ' This is my body/ 
that is, a figure of my body." 1 According to Mr. 
Hughes, Tertullian is made to say : " The bread 
which he took and distributed to his disciples, that 
he made his body, by saying, ' This is my body,' that 
is, an exterior appearance of my body ;" which is 
futile and false. For Tertullian is proving the 
reality of Christ's body against the error of Marcion, 
by showing that the real bread which he called his 
body, required that the thing symbolized by it 
should be real also. This is evident from what fol- 
lows : " But it would not have been a figure, unless 
his body had been a true one." But Mr. Hughes' 
interpretation makes Tertullian say: "But it 
would not have been an exterior appearance unless 
his body had been a true one." "Hold," says Marcion : 
"it would not have been an exterior appearance 
merely unless his body had been & false one— a mere 
phantasm." According to Mr. Hughes' version, 
therefore, nothing could have served better to con- 
firm Marcion in his error than Tertullian's argu- 
ment. For, like Marcion, the believer of a real 
presence rejects the external appearance as a 
certain indication of a corresponding substantial 
reality. 

Eusebius says: "He delivered to his disciples 
the symbols of the divine economy, commanding an 
image of his own body to be made." 2 According 
to Mr. Hughes, "He delivered to his disciples the 
exterior appearances of the divine economy, com- 
manding an exterior appearance of his own body to 
be made ! " How very exterior is this religion of 
ours, if it consists only of an external appearance. 
" Our Lord did not doubt to say, < This is my body,' 
when he gave the sign of his body," 3 says St. Augus- 

l Tertull. adv. Marcion., lib. iv, cap. 40. 

2 Euseb. Dera. Evang., lib. viii, cap. 1. [See above, p. 136.] 

8 Aug. contra Adimant, cap. 12. [See above, p. 138.] 



180 ON THE EUCHARIST. 

tine. " When he gave the exterior appearance of 
his body/' says the transubstantiationist ; who, 
after all, by his interpretation of the ancient Fathers, 
resolves Christ's body in the sacrament into a 
mere appearance. "In holy baptism," says Theo- 
doret, "we see the type of the resurrection, but we 
shall then see the resurrection itself; here we see 
the symbols of the Lord's body, we shall there see the 
Lord himself." 6 In this passage the terms type 
and symbols have a corresponding meaning, both 
signifying a typical representation. The distinction 
between the symbolical and real presence of Christ 
is very marked. On the words of Jeremiah, " They 
shall flow unto the goodness of the Lord, for wheat, 
and wine, and oil," ch. xxxi, v. 12, Jerome re- 
marks : " Of which the bread of the Lord is made, 
and the type of his blood is filled, and the blessing 
of sanctification shown forth." 

Macarius of Egypt says: "In the church is 
offered bread and wine, the antitype of Christ's 
flesh and blood, and they that eat the visible bread 
do eat the flesh of the Lord spiritually." 1 

Theodoret remarks: "If the Lord's flesh be 
changed into the nature of the divinity, wherefore 
do they partake of the antitypes of his body ; for 
when the truth is taken away the type is super- 
fluous." 2 

Cyprian says: " Our Lord, at the table where he 
participated in the last feast with his disciples, 
gave, with his own hands, bread and wine; but 
upon the cross he delivered his body into the hands 
of the soldiers to be wounded, that sincere truth 
and true sincerity, being more deeply impressed 
upon the Apostles, might make known to the Gen- 

b Theodoret Com. in I Cor., xiii. c Tom. ii, p. 648. 

iMacar. Homil. xxvii. [See above, p. 136-7.] 
zRecapit. in fine Dialog, iii. 



THE TERMS FIGURE, SYMBOL, &C. 181 

tiles how bread and wine became his flesh and 
blood, and in what manner causes agree with their 
effects,, and the names or species of things diverse 
are referred to one essence, and the things signify- 
ing and those signified are understood by the same 
terms." "And he offered the same that Melchis- 
edec offered, that is, bread and wine, to wit, his 
body and blood." "Nor can his blood by which 
we have been redeemed and quickened, seem to be 
in the cup when wine is wanting in the cup." 1 
" Neither did he reject bread by which he represents 
his own body," 2 says Tertullian. 

St. Augustine asks : " How is the bread his body, 
and the cup, or what the cup contains, his blood ? 
These things, my brethren, are therefore called 
sacraments, because in them one thing is seen, 
another is understood." 3 And, "the sacrament of 
the body and blood of Christ which is in the conse- 
crated bread and wine, we are wont to call his body 
and blood. Not indeed that the bread is properly 
called his body, and the cup his blood ; but because 
they contain in themselves the mystery of his body 
and blood." 

These passages suffice to show that when the 
Fathers apply the terms figure, image, sign, symbol, 
type, antitype, bread and wine, to the consecrated 
elements, they employ them with reference to the 
substance of those elements, and not to their mere 
external qualities, or accidents. Their plain mean- 
ing therefore is, that these elements are the sym- 
bolical representatives of Christ's real flesh and 
blood; for that interpretation which refers these 

D Opera, p. 473. 1 Cyprian, Epist. lxiii, ad Csecilium. 

2 Adv. Marcion, lib. i, cap. 14. 

3 Aug. Serm. ad recent Baptizat. 

4 Facund. Defens. Concil. Chalced., lib. ix, cap. 5. (Vid. 
p. 138.) 

16 



182 ON THE EUCHARIST. 

terms to the exterior appearance only, makes the 
Fathers chargeable with the most frivolous non- 
sense and seli : contradiction. 

4. Not only do the Fathers make a distinc- 
tion between the image, figure and type of a thing 
constructively, but they also do the same defini- 
tively, as we conclude from the following: "The 
image will not in every respect be equal to the 
truth ; for it is one thing to be according to truth, 
and another to be the truth itself." E "For no one 
is an image of himself." F And, "No one can be 
an image of himself." 6 Because "It would be no 
longer an image if it were altogether the same as 
that of which it is an image." H Nay, "What 
more absurd than to be called an image with re- 
spect to one's self." 1 "Nor is a figure the truth, 
but an imitation of the truth." J "A type is not 
the truths but rather introduces the likeness of the 
truth." K And, "A pledge and image belong to 
something else, that is, they look not to themselves 
but to something else." 1 

They make a type, sign, image, and symbol 
inferior to that of which it is a type ; and a sym- 
bolical representation of what is absent from the 
sign. 

Chrysostom observes : " Well did the Apostle say, 
'In righteousness and true holiness,' Eph. iv : 24. 
There was once a righteousness and holiness amongst 
the Jews ; but that was not true but typical right- 

E Tertull. contra Marcion, lib. ii, cap. 9. 

F Hilarius de Synodis. 

G Ambros. de fide, lib. i, c. 4. 

H Greg. Nyssen, de Anima et Resurrectione. 

1 Aug. de Trinit, lib. vii, c. 1. 

J Gaudent. Tract, ii, in Exod. 

K Cyril. Alex, in Amos vi. 

L Bertram, de Corp. et Sang. Dom. 



THE TERMS FIGURE, SYMBOL, TYPE, ETC. 183 

eousness. For the being pure in body was a type 
of purification ; it was a type of righteousness, not 
true righteousness." M 

"It is as much inferior to it as a sign is of the 
thing of which it is a sign." N "Here is the 
shadow, here the image, there the truth. The 
shadow was in the law, the image is in the gospel, 
the truth is in the heavens." ° " Therefore ascend, 
man ! into heaven, and you shall see those things 
of which the shadow and image were here." p 

" For after his coming there will no longer be 
any need of the symbols of his body, his body then 
appearing. " Q And Maximus, the interpreter, of 
the spurious Dionysius, speaking of bread and wine 
which he calls "holy gifts," says: "They are the 
symbols of things above that are more true." R 
""For the things of the old dispensation were a 
shadow, those of the new, an image, but the condi- 
tion of things to come is the truth. " s 

III. Again : Your church employs the term spe- 
cies to designate the exterior appearances of bread 
and wine in the Eucharist, to the exclusion of their 
substance. 1 

The Fathers apply the term to the substance of 
these elements. When speaking of the bread in 
the sacrament, Augustine says: "When by the 
hands of men it is brought to that visible species, 
it is not sanctified that it should become so great a 

M Chrysost. Horn, xiii, in Ep. ad Ephes. 
N Idem, Horn, viii, in Ep. ad Rom. 
p Idem, in Psal. xxxviii. 

Ambros. de Offic, lib. i, cap. 48. 
QTheodoret in I Cor. xi. 26. 
R Hierarch. Eccles. c. 1. 

s Idem, c. 3. 

1 See Council of Trent, Sess. xiii, canon 2. (Cited above, 
p. 22.) 



184 OX THE EUCHARIST. 

sacrament except by the invisible operation of the 
Spirit of God.'' T 

Also, speaking of the Jews, he says: u Behold 
the signs are varied, faith remaining the same. 
There, the rock was Christ; to us, that which is 
placed upon the altar of God is Christ ; they drank 
the water flowing from the rock for a great sacra- 
ment of the same Christ. "What we drink the faith- 
ful know. If you regard the visible species, it was 
another thing, if the intelligible signification, they 
drink the same spiritual drink." u 

Gaudextius says: "By the species of wine his 
blood is rightly expressed ;. for when he says in 
the gospel, / am the true vine, he fully declares that 
all the wine which is offered in a figure of his pas- 
sion, is his blood. " Y Here the species of icine in the 
first clause is equivalent to all the wine in the lat- 
ter. 

Kupertus Abbas teaches, that "nothing of the 
sacrifice enters into him who is destitute of faith,, 
except the visible species of bread and wine."' w 

Walprtdus Strabo says, that " Christ delivered to 
his disciples the sacraments of his body and blood, 
in the substance of bread and wine." And adds ; 
"that nothing could be found more suitable than 
these species, to signify the unity of the head and 
members. " x 

IV. The Catechism of the Council of Trent has 
the following language, in reference to the bread 
and wine of the Eucharist: "The accidents which 
present themselves to the eyes, or other senses, 
exist in a wonderful and ineffable manner without 

T Aug. de Trinit. lib. iii, c. 4. 
u ^ Idem, in Joan. Tract, xlv. 
v Gaudent. Tract, ii in Exod. 
w Rupert, de Offic, lib. ii, cap. 9. 
x De Rebus Eccles., cap. 16. 



THE TERM FIGURE, SYMBOL, TYPE, ESC. 185 

a subject. The accidents of bread and wine we see ; 
but they inhere in no substance, and exist indepen- 
dently of any. The substance of bread and wine is 
so changed into the body and blood of our Lord, 
that they altogether cease to be the substance of 
bread and wine." 1 The eucharistic elements are, 
therefore, made an exception to the general laws of 
matter, inasmuch as the properties of bread and 
wine are affirmed to subsist without the presence 
of these substances. 

On the contrary, the Fathers affirm the insepa- 
rability of substances from their accidents, not ex- 
cepting the Eucharist, as a few examples will show. 
Thus, "Water cannot be understood without mois- 
ture, nor fire without heat, nor a stone without 
hardness. For these are united to one another: 
the one cannot be separated from the other, but 
they always coexist."* "Every quality is in a 
substance." 2 "There being no substance quality is 
annihilated." 3 And, "Quality cannot be separated 
in its hypostasis from matter." 5 "But if by your 
reasoning you distinguish figure from a body, na- 
ture admits not the distinction, but the one is un- 
derstood in conjunction with the other." 6 " As that 
is not a body which has not color and figure, 
solidity, space and weight, and other properties ; 
so, where these which have been mentioned do con- 
cur, they produce a bodily subsistence." d 

Gregory Nazianzen, when arguing the person- 
ality and divinity of the Holy Spirit, says: "He is 

i Roman Catechism, p. 207, cited by Elliott, vol. 1, p. 247. 
Y Iren. adv. Hseres. 1. ii, c. 14. 
z Athanas. Orat. iv, contra Arianos. 
a Isidor. Pelusiot. lib. ii, Epist. 72. 
b Methodius apud Photium, codic. 232. 
c Basil. Epist. xliii. 

d Greg. Nyssen. de Opificio Horn. cap. 24. 
16* 



186 ON THE EUCHARIST. 

to be supposed to belong either to those things 
which subsist by themselves, or to those which are 
observed in something else ; the former of which, 
those skilled in those things, call substance, the 
latter, accident. If, then he be an accident, this 
would be the power of God." e He assumes that 
accidents must have some subject to which they 
belong. "It is monstrous and the farthest from 
truth," says St. Augustine, "that that which would 
not be unless it were in a subject, would be able 
to exist when that subject, should cease to be." f 
"When the subject is changed, every thing in the 
subject is necessarily changed." g And, "Take 
away bodies from their qualities, and there will be 
nothing where [these qualities] should be^ and 
therefore they will necessarily cease to exist." h 
Cyril of Alexandria teaches the same. In his dia- 
logue concerning the Trinity, he asks, "Do you 
suppose that black and white can subsist by them- 
selves? By No Means." 1 He calls it madness to 
affirm that the essence of the Son consists in sub- 
jection to the Father. For, he asks: "How can 
subjection be conceived to subsist by itself without 
existing in anything real?" And afterward: "If 
there be no subject, and nothing pre-exists in which 
those things are wont to be done, how can those 
things exist by themselves which are understood 
and defined in the order of accidents ?" 1 And in 
another place when arguing that the Son, though 
proceeding from the Father, is inseparable from 
him, he illustrates by the inseparability of accidents 
from their subjects, as follows: "We see heat in 
separably proceeding from fire, but it is the fruit 

e Greg. Naz. Orat. xxxvii. 

f Aug. Soliloq. lib. ii, c. 12. 

s Idem, de Imrnortalitate Animae, cap v. 

h Idem, Epist. lvii, ad Dardanum. 

1 De Trinitat. Dial. ii. 1 In Joan, lib. 4 r cap. i. 



ACCIDENTS CO-EXIST WITH THEIR SUBJECT. 187 

of the very essence of fire, proceeding inseparably 
from it; as also splendor is the fruit of light. For 
light cannot subsist without splendor, nor fire 
without heat; for what is begotten of them does 
always adhere to such substances." j 

Thus did the ancient Fathers undertake to prove 
the personality of the Holy Spirit, and the eternity 
of the Son of God from the inseparability of acci- 
dents from their subjects. One of them goes so 
far as to say, that if God himself had accidents they 
would exist in his substance. * It appears therefore, 
if their reasoning be correct, that the doctrine of 
the Trinity and the dogma of Transubstantiation 
are defended by arguments based upon evidence 
quite contradictory ; so that we are in little danger 
of making shipwreck of the former, by rejecting the 
latter. From the evidence collected under this 
head, we may fairly conclude, that the ancient 
defenders of the Christian faith would never have 
used such arguments in proof of the Trinity, had 
one of their principal doctrines required for its very 
existence, evidence of a perfectly opposite character. 
I believe they were men of too much common sense, 
thus to array the evidences of the truth of Christb 
anity in fatal conflict, the one against the other. 

V. Your church differs from the ancient Fathers, 
in ascribing to the eucharistic elements properties 
and mode of being which they deny all bodies, not 
excepting the Lord's glorified body. 

The Council of Trent says: "If anyone shall 
deny that in the venerable sacrament of the Eucha- 
rist, whole Christ is contained under each species, 
and under every part of each species- when a sepa- 
ration is made; let him be anathema." 3 

i Idem, Thesaur. Assert. 16. 

1 Vide Atlianas. Orat. iv, contra Arianos. 

2 Sess. xiii, Can. 3. (See above p. 22.] 



188 ON THE EUCHARIST. 

The believer of transubstantiation is therefore 
compelled to admit, 

1. That a body can exist in more places than one 
at the same time: for, according to his theory, the 
same body of Christ is in every place where the 
consecrated elements exist. 

2. That such a body exists within itself and con- 
tains itself; otherwise we cannot well account for 
the alleged fact, that when a separation is made, 
the whole body of Christ is contained in every frag- 
ment, however minute. 

3. That his body exists in an invisible and im- 
palpable manner, like a spirit, although it be pres- 
ent before us. 

1. Augustine says: "You must not doubt that 
Christ entire is everywhere present as God, and is 
in the same temple of God as an inhabiting Deity, 
and is in a certain place of heaven by reason of the 
measure of his true body." k "Our Lord is above; 
but truth, the Lord, is also here. For the body of 
the Lord in which he arose, must be in a place ; his 
truth is everywhere diffused." 1 "According to his 
bodily presence, he cannot be at the same time in 
the sun, in the moon, and upon the cross." m 

Theodoret says of Christ's body after his resur- 
rection: "It is nevertheless a body having its 
former circumscription." n 

"Man ^ or any thing else like him," says Hilary, 
"when he is anywhere, is not then elsewhere; be- 
cause that which is there, is contained where it is ; 
so that he that is placed any where cannot be every 
where, on account of the infirmity of his nature." 

k Aug. Ep. lvi, ad Dardanum. 

1 Idem, Tract, xxx, in Joan. 
m Idem, contra Faustum, lib. xx, c.. 11. 
n Theodoret, Dialog, ii. 
° Hilarii, lib. viii, de Trinitate. 



HOW ALL BODIES SUBSIST. 189 

From the foregoing, these writers evidently con- 
sidered Christ's human body as subject to the same 
absolute conditions of being, as all other bodies, not- 
withstanding its resurrection from the dead to a 
state of incorruption and glory. 

2. The Bishop of Hippo also teaches, that " God 
entire is in heaven and entire on earth, not in al- 
ternate times, but both at the same time, which no 
corporal body is capable of." p Consequently, the 
body of Christ cannot be, at the same time, both in 
heaven and on earth in the sacrament. And, 
" However great or small a body may be, it occu- 
pies a space of place, and so fills that same place, 
that its whole is in no part of it." cl And again, 
"There can be no body, either celestial or terrestrial, 
aerial or humid, which is not less in its part than 
in its whole ; nor can it in any manner have another 
part in the place of this part." r 

Nazianzen asserts, that " a vessel of the capacity 
of one measure will not contain two measures, nor 
will the space of one body contain two or more 
bodies." 3 This he says when proving the two perfect 
natures of Christ, and thereby admits that if Christ's 
two natures were both corporeal, that he could not 
contain two perfect natures. 

Cyril of Alexandria repeatedly says that "nothing 
contains itself."* 

"He that dwells in the tabernacle," says the 
" golden-mounted " orator of Constantinople, " and 
the tabernacle itself, are not the same ; but one thing 
dwells in another — for nothing dwells in itself." u 

PAug. de Civitate Dei, lib. xxii, c. 29. 

1 1dem, Epist. iii, ad Volusian. 

r Idem, contra Epist. Manichsei, c. 10. 

s Greg. Naz. Orat. li, torn. i ; p. 741. 

1 Cyril, Alex. Dial. vi. Vide et Dial, v, et vii. 

u Homil. x, in Joan, citat. a Theodoret, Dial. ii. Vide et 
Irenaeiadv. Hseres. lib. ii,c. 1. — Tertull. contra Marcion, lib. i, 
c. 15 — etEpiplian, Hseres. xlii, sec. 7. 



190 ON" THE EUCHARIST. 

3. Tertullian says : " I understand nothing else 
to be the body of a man except what is seen and 
apprehended/' v " God is incorporeal and therefore 
invisible," w says Methodius. 

Gregory Nazianzen asks, "Whether God is a 
body, and how is it immense, unbounded, without 
shape, impalpable and invisible? This is not the 
nature of bodies,"* he replies. 

Gregory of Nyssen, — "That is not a body in 
which do not exist color, figure, solidity, space, 
weight, and the rest of its properties." 3 " 

Augustine, speaking of our Lord, says: "He is 
always with us by his divinity, but were he not 
corporeally absent from us_, we should always car- 
nally see his body." z 

Fulgentius makes use of the following remark- 
able language: " Every thing so remains as it has 
received of God that it should be, one thing in this 
manner, and another in that. For it has not been 
so given to bodies that they should exist as spirits 
have received." a 

From the passages cited in this communication 
it appears that the Fathers regarded all bodies, 
whether celestial or terrestrial, as subject to the 
following general laws: They occupy a certain 
space of place — are greater than their parts — can- 
not be contained in themselves — have necessarily 
certain sensible properties — and are limited to a 
single place at one time ; all which directly over- 
throws that most strange doctrine of transubstan- 
tiation, which is contrary to the fundamental prin- 

T Tertull. de Resurrec, c. 35. 

w Method, apud Photium, Cod. 234. 

x Orat. xxxiv, torn, i, p. 540. 

y Cry. Nyssen. de Opificio, Ham. c. 24. 

z Aug. de Verbo Domini, Serm. lx. 

° Fulgent, de Fide ad Petr., c. 3. 



HOW ALL BODIES SUBSIST. 191 

ciples of knowledge and repugnant to the common 
judgment of mankind. 

With the cordial regards of 

Yours sincerely, 

E. 0. P. 



LETTER XL 

THE TEEMS BODY AND BLOOD OF CHRIST, AND THE 
EXPRESSION, MAKING THE BODY AND BLOOD OF 
CHRIST, NOW USED IN A SENSE DIFFERENT FROM THAT 
GIVEN THEM BY THE ANCIENT CHURCH. 

Dear Brother : — When speaking of the eucha- 
ristic elements, it was usual with the ancients, to 
call them the body and blood of Christ. " Almost 
all/' says St. Augustine, "do indeed call the sacra- 
ment his body." A It is this undisputed usage upon 
which you seize, and which you press into your 
service as if decisive of your doctrine. But before 
you conclude from this kind of expression^ a phy- 
sical change to have been believed, you ought to 
show in what sense these words were used. As 
you have neglected to clo this, it devolves upon me 
to make such suggestions in relation to this phrase- 
ology, as shall enable us to form a right estimate of 
its true import. What then do the Fathers mean, 
when they call the sacramental elements the body 
and blood of Christ? You profess to believe, that 
nothing less than his real flesh and blood are in- 
tended; L, on the contrary, suppose them to intend 
no more than the sacrament of that real body and 
blood, to wit, bread and wine in their proper sub- 
stance, but sanctified by the invisible operation of 
the Holy Spirit, and thereby made the vehicles of 
spiritual grace to the worthy recipient. For the 
correctness of this view I offer you the following 
considerations: 

A Aug. de Verb. Dora. Serm. liii. 



THE TERMS BODY AND BLOOD. 193 

1. When the Fathers call the consecrated Eucha- 
rist the body of Christ, they sometimes use certain 
restrictive terms, which indicate that they did not 
intend to call it his real and proper body. 

"But we/' says Origen, "giving thanks to the 
Maker of the universe, with prayer and thanksgiving 
for his gifts, eat the bread which is offered, and 
which by prayer is made a certain holy body, and 
sanctifies those that use it with good proposal." 6 
Here the term certain plainly intimates that he 
does not use the word body in its proper sense, but 
with an accommodated or figurative signification. 
For, as no one would call pure gold, a certain gold, 
or pure silver, a certain kind of silver, so Origen is 
not to be supposed to designate the real and proper 
body of Christ by the expression, " a certain holy 
body." 

St. Augustine makes use of the qualifying term. 
" Christ took in his hands what the faithful know, 
and in a certain manner carried himself when he 
said, "This is my body.' " c And, " After a certain 
manner the sacrament of the body of Christ, is the 
body of Christ, and the sacrament of the blood of 
Christ, is the blood of Christ." D 

The venerable Bede also uses the same expression. 
"Christ, in a certain manner," says he, "was car- 
ried in his own hands." E 

The expression already cited from St. Augus- 
tine, " almost all do indeed call the sacrament the 
body of Christ," also shows these terms to be used 
in a catachrestic sense. For who would say that 
almost all call men, men, or a lion, lion? Do not 
all call them so ? Most certainly ; and that too 

B Origen, contra Celsum, lib. viii, No. 33. 
c Aug. in Psal. xxxiii. 
D Aug. ad Bonifac. Epist. xxiii. 
E B8eda in Psal. xxxiii. 

17 



194 ON THE EUCHARIST. 

because such are their proper names. But to say 
that almost all call rulers, gods, is equivalent to 
saying, that for certain reasons rulers are so called, 
hut not because they are properly such. 

2. The Fathers well knowing the Eucharist to 
be, not the real and proper body of Christ, give 
several reasons for calling it his body. 

From its similitude, in some sense, to those 
things of which it is a sacrament. St. Augustine 
says: "If the sacraments had not some similitude 
of those things of which they are sacraments, they 
would not be sacraments at all ; but from this like- 
ness they also take, for the most part, the names of 
the things themselves." F 

The author of the Book of Sacraments under the 
name of Ambrose, remarks: "Perhaps thou sayest, 
I do not see the species of blood. But it has its 
similitude. For as thou hast received the likeness 
of his death, so thou drinkest the likeness of his 
precious blood." G 

Isidore of Seville says : " Because bread strength- 
ens the body, it is therefore called the body of 
Christ; but the wine, because it operates blood in 
the flesh ? is therefore referred to as the blood of 
Christ." H 

They called the Eucharist the body and blood 
of Christ, because it was considered as the symbol- 
ical representation of Christ. 

" Wherefore with all assurance," exhorts Cyril, 
" let us partake of the body and blood of Christ ; 
for in the type of bread his body is given thee, and 
in the type of wine his blood is given thee." 1 
"When the Lord said, 'this is my body, and this 



F Aug. Epist. xxiii. Vide et Bsedam, in Epist. ad Rom., 
cap. vi. 

G Ambros. de Sacram., lib. iv, c. 4. 
HMdor. de Offic. Eccles., lib. i, c. 18. 
1 Cyril, Ierosol. Catecli. Mystag. iv. 



THE TERMS BODY AND BLOOD. 195 

is my blood/ it was fit that they who set forth the 
bread, should after the giving of thanks, reckon it 
to be his body and partake of it ; and account the 
cup to be in the place of his blood." I 

The author of the Commentaries attributed to 
Jerome, says "Christ left to us his last remem- 
brance, or memorial; just as if some one going 
a journey, should leave some pledge to one whom 
he loved, that as often as he should see it he might 
call to mind his favors and friendships." 1 

And in general terms, Augustine says: "All 
things signifying seem in some manner to take the 
persons of those things which they signify, as it is 
said by the Apostle : The rock was Christ, because 
that rock of which this is spoken then signified 
Christ." 2 In this manner do the Fathers give us 
their reasons for designating the consecrated ele- 
ments, the body and blood of Christ; which shows 
that they did not consider them his natural and 
proper, but his representative body and blood. For 
it is not required to give reasons for calling things 
by their proper names. Who would think of giv- 
ing a reason for calling iron, iron, wood by the 
name of wood, or water by the name of water? 
Whenever their respective names are pronounced, 
no one thinks of giving a reason for thus calling 
them ; because they are understood to be properly 
what they are denominated. If therefore the 
ancients had, by universal consent, understood the 
consecrated elements to be the very substantial 
body and blood of Christ, it is difficult to account 
for their giving their reasons for so calling them. 

3. When speaking of the sacramental body and 
blood of Christ, the Fathers, in their very language, 
point at something different from his proper blood. 

1 Victor Antioch, in Marc xiv. 

1 Com. in I Cor. xi. 

2 Aug. de Civitate Dei, lib. xviii, c. 48. 



196 ON THE EUCHARIST. 

Having formerly cited several passages to this 
effect, * I shall add but a few more. 

Chrysostom inquires, " What is the bread ? The 
body of Christ. What do they who partake be- 
come? The body of Christ. Not many bodies but 
one body." J 

" The bread being taken, and afterward the cup 
of wine, he testified that they were his body and 
blood," K says Tatlan the Syrian. " Who is more a 
priest of the Most High God than our Lord Jesus 
Christ? Who offered this same that Melchisedec 
offered, that is bread and wine, to wit, his body and 
blood." And "we find that the cup was mixed 
which the Lord offered, and that what he called his 
blood was wine." 2 "When our Lord reached the 
consecrated bread and wine to his disciples, he thus 
said, < This is my body.' " L And Jerome says : " Let 
us hear that that bread which our Lord broke and 
gave to his disciples, is the body of our Saviour." M 

Again, when speaking of those virgins who were 
reproved for drinking wine to excess; "they made 
this excuse, joining sacrilege to drunkenness, and 
said, far be it that I should abstain from the blood 
of Christ." N So common was it, in that age, to 
call wine the blood of the Redeemer. 

Leo the Great speaking of the Manichees, who 
through fear of the laws came to the communion of 
the Catholics, gives the following as a direction how 
to discover them. "They so conduct themselves in 
the communion of the sacraments, that they may 

JSee Letters vii and viii. 

J Chrysost. Honiil. xxiv, in I Cor. 

K Tatian Syrus. Harmon, in Biblioth. Patrum, torn. vii. 

2 Cyprian, Ep. lxiii, ad Caecilium. (See above pp. 134-5.) 

LGaudent. Tract, ii, in Exod. 

M Hieron. Ep. ad Hedibiam. 

N Idem, Ep. ad Eustach. 



THE TERMS BODY AND BLOOD. 197 

sometime be more safely concealed. With an un- 
worthy mouth they take the body of Christ, but 
altogether refuse to drink the blood of our redemp- 
tion." ° The reason why they would not partake of 
the cup was that the use of wine was altogether 
forbidden by them; as St. Augustine says : x "They 
drink no wine, saying, it is the gall of the princes 
of darkness." Facundus says : " Our Lord himself 
called the blessed bread and cup which he delivered 
to his disciples, his body and blood." p " This is my 
body, that is, in a sacrament," says Druthmarus. q 
And the Ethiopic churches are said to use this 
phrase. "This bread is my body." r The Council 
of Carthage decreed against the Armenians, that 
"nothing but the body and blood of the Lord should 
be offered, as the Lord himself delivered, that is, 
bread, and wine mixed with ivater." s 

4. The Fathers also speak of Christ's body in the 
Eucharist as being sanctified by the Spirit of God. 

Isidore of Seville, "By his command we call 
this the body and blood of Christ, which being 
made of the fruits of the earth, is sanctified and 
made a sacrament by the invisible operation of the 
Spirit of God." T 

What they mean by the term sanctification, may 
be seen from the following: "To sanctify any 
thing, this is to vow it to God." u " That which is 
said to be sanctified does not partake of all holiness, 
but it rather signifies that which is devoted to God 

Leo Mag. Serm. iv, de Quadrag. 

1 De Hseres, 46. 

p Facund. Defens. iii, lib. ix, cap. ult. 

Q Com. in Matt. xxvi. 

R Ludolph. iEthiop. Hist. lib. iii, c. 5, n. 56. 

s Pandect. Canon, p. 565. 

T Isidor. Originum, lib. vi, c. 19. 

u Origen, in Levit. Horn. xi. 

17* 



198 ON THE EUCHARIST. 

unto his glorjv" 7 Would it not be impiety to say 
that the glorified body of our Lord which is united 
to his divine nature, does not partake of all holi- 
ness? Again: "We say that a place, or bread, or 
wine is sanctified, which is set apart for God, and 
put to no common use." w And, " That which is 
sanctified and offered is sanctified because it is 
offered : therefore it was not holy before."* This 
cannot be true of the proper body of Christ which 
was always holy ; but only of the typical bread, 
which before consecration was common, or unsanc- 
tified bread. When therefore we hear St. Augus- 
tine saying : " That which is upon the table of the 
Lord — is blessed and sanctijied" Y we must not un- 
derstand him as meaning, "that Holy Thing' 
[Luke i, 35,] which was born of Mary, and is now 
in heaven, but the consecrated symbol of that holy 
and glorified body." For the sanctification here 
spoken of is actual — it is that which takes place 
through the agency of the creature, and not that 
which consists simply of a holiness as existing 
above and independently of us. 

The language of these Fathers very illyapplies 
to the doctrine of tran substantiation. For it is cer- 
tain that the " glorified body of the cross" does not 
depend for its sanctification upon being offered by 
us. Nor can it be true of this, that it was not holy 
before being offered. But with the Protestant view 
of this sacrament the language of these Fathers 
perfectly harmonizes. 

5. The Council of Trent teaches that Christ en- 
tire is contained under every part of each species ; 
consequently, there is no such thing as breaking 

v Cyril Alex. Com. in Esaiam, lib. 1, Orat. vi, p. 178. 
w Jobius, apud Photium, Cod. 222. 
x Hesych. in Levit. lib. vii. 
Y Aug. Ep. lix, ad Paulum. 



THE TERMS BODY AND BLOOD. 199 

the body of Christ in the sacrament, or taking a 
portion of it; because, however small the particle 
may be, it is said to contain whole Christ. This 
also disagrees with the teaching of antiquity. 

Origen says: "When ye take the body of the 
Lord, ye preserve it with all care and veneration, 
lest any little of it fall, lest any thing of the conse- 
crated gift should slip down [to the ground.] 2 

Here the phrase any little of it y referring to the 
body of the Lord, plainly implies that the Lord's 
body in the sacrament may be divided into parts, 
otherwise no part of it could fall to the ground. 

And St. Augustine speaking of that which, upon 
the Lord's table, is blessed and sanctified, says: 
"It is broken into small parts to be distributed." 3 
And elsewhere his expression is: "To take a part 
of the body of the immaculate lamb." b This can- 
not be true of the real body of Christ, as the Tri- 
dentine doctors very well knew. 

The foregoing representation sufficiently shows, 
that the ancients used the terms body and blood of 
Christ, when speaking of the Eucharist, in a sense 
entirely different from that in which your church 
employs them at the present day. It is therefore 
unnecessary to enter upon any particular reply to 
those passages cited by you, in which this kind of 
expression is used. In regard to the words used 
there is no dispute. Our business is, therefore, to 
ascertain the sense given them by their authors. 
But the sense given them by you leads directly to 
insurmountable difficulties, and makes them en- 
tirely nugatory. And the only meaning which 
can possibly be attached to the phraseology under 
consideration^ is that which contemplates the eu- 

zOrigen, Horn, xiii, in Exod. n. 3. 
a Aug. Ep. lix, ad Paulnra. 
b Idem, Ep. lxxxvi, ad Casul. 



200 ON THE EUCHARIST. 

charistic elements as the.. symbols of Christ's real 
body and blood. 

II. Let us also consider that other kind of ex- 
pression in which the Eucharist is said to be made 
the body and blood of Christ; and if we succeed in 
proving their use to be contrary to that assigned 
them by your church, we shall as conclusively es- 
tablish the opposite or Protestant sense. 

When theologians of your communion speak of 
making Christ's body in the Eucharist, they are to 
be understood as meaning that same body that ap- 
peared upon the earth and was crucified. 

Cardinal Biel says: " He who created me, has, 
if it be lawful to speak it, given to me to create 
himself, and he who created me without me is 
created by my mediation." 

And in the same lecture he makes a comparison 
between the Virgin and the priests: "She by say- 
ing eight words, conceived the Son of God and Ke- 
deemer of the world ; they that are consecrated by 
the Lord, by Jive words daily call the Son of God 
and the Virgin bodily before them." And he then 
cries out, " Consider ye priests in what rank and 
dignity ye are placed." 11 To the same purpose we 
may quote that famous declaration of R abacus 
Maurus, archbishop of Mentz, who in the ninth 
century ojjposed the newly taught doctrine of a 
corporeal change. "Some persons of late," says 
he, "not entertaining a sound opinion respecting 
the sacrament of the body and blood of our Lord, 
have actually ventured to declare that this is the 
identical body and blood of our Lord Jesus Christ; 
the identical body, to wit, which was born of the 
Virgin Mary, in which Christ suffered on the cross, 
and in which he arose from the dead." 1 From 

c Id Canon. Missse, Lect. iv. d Ibid. 

1 Ep. ad Heribald, cap. 33. 



MAKING THE BODY OF CHRIST. 201 

which it appears, that when they speak of creating, 
or making Christ's body, they mean that same 
body which had a prior existence. The Fathers 
teach the contrary, as a few passages from their 
writings will show. 

" That which already has a being is not made, 
but that which has not an existence/' 6 "Nothing 
which has a fieri is without a beginning, but its 
beginning takes place when its fieri begins." f 
" Everything that is made, was not before it was 
made." s "What is made begins tobe." b "For 
to make is true of that which was not at all." 1 
"To be made is wont to be the property of him 
who never subsisted before."- 1 "For that which 
already exists, cannot certainly be brought into 
being, but that which does not exist." k And, 
"those things which have already sprung up, can- 
not return again into that state that they should 
be generated by a new creation." 1 

Such being the sense in which the Fathers use 
the expression to make, we have the means at hand 
of solving all those passages in which they speak 
of making the Lord's body in the Eucharist. Let 
us examine their phraseology by their own general 
principles. 

Gregory of Nyssen's Eule is: "If he made it, 
he made that which was not at all. " m Applica- 
tion : "It was common bread before, but when the 

e Athenag. de Resurrect. 

f Tertull. lib. contra Hermog., c. 19. 

s Hilar, de Trinit, lib. xii. 

h Ambros. de Incarn., lib. iii. 

1 Aug. de Moribus Manich, cap. vii. 

i Vigil., lib. iii, contra Eutycli. 

k Cyril. Alex. Thesaur., Assert. 20. 

1 Cassian de Incarn., lib. vii, c. 2. 

m Greg. Nysseni contra Eunom., lib. iii. 



202 ON THE EUCHARIST. 

mystery lias consecrated it, it is called and is made 
the body of Christ." n 

In the first passage he tells us that to make is to 
produce or bring into being a new existence ; but 
in the latter, he says the bread after its consecra- 
tion is made the body of Christ. But the proper 
and real body of Christ had an existence before the 
consecration of the Eucharist. How then was it 
made the body of Christ ? Not substantially, be- 
cause, as we have just said, his real body has a 
real existence previously to the consecration of the 
bread. Plainly therefore, Gregory must have meant 
the making it not a substantial, but a symbolical 
body ; for this it had not before, as common bread, 
but was made such by consecration. And here, 
without departing from this general rule of Greg- 
ory, there may be a successive and continual mak- 
ing of Christ's symbolical body ; for it is according 
to the nature of a symbol to be brought into exist- 
ence at the will of the operator, and to cease to 
continue such, when the purposes for which it was 
made have been accomplished. 

Again, our author says a little after : " We sub- 
mit to the Holy Spirit that we may be made that 
which he is and is called." That is, that we be 
made morally pure and holy like the Holy Spirit, 
be created anew in righteousness and true holiness, 
but not made what the Holy Spirit is in substance ; 
for the Holy Spirit most certainly has a substantial 
being before we submit to him ; and therefore, ac- 
cording to Gregory's rule, we cannot be made what 
he is in substance, because this would be equivalent 
to a new creation, or making of the Holy Spirit. 

Tertullian also gives it as a general rule, that, 
" What is made has its beginning ivhen it is made" 

n Idem, de Baptismate Christi, torn, iii, p. 370. 
° Page 372. 



MAKING THE BODY OF CHRIST. 203 

He makes the fieri and the esse co-existent. Else- 
where he says: "The bread which was taken and 
distributed to his disciples, that he made his body." 1 

Augustine says : " To make is true of that which 
was not at all." Again, "Not all bread, but that 
which receives the benediction of Christ is made his 
body." p And, "Our bread and cup are made mys- 
tical to us by a sure consecration, and do not grow 
so." 2 

In the same manner are we to understand like 
expressions, to be found in the writings of others of 
the ancients; thus, "when the invocation is made, 
the bread is made the body of Christ, and the wine 
the blood of Christ." q And Ambrose says: "This 
body which we make is of the Virgin ;" which he 
explains by another accompanying expression: "It 
was the true flesh of Christ that was crucified and 
buried: it is therefore truly the sacrament of his 
flesh." 1 * He makes a very marked distinction be- 
tween Christ's true or natural flesh and that which 
is sacramental. The same distinction he elsewhere 
makes, as do others of the Fathers ; but the pas- 
sages quoted are sufficient to show in what sense 
we are to understand the phraseology considered. 

In the above citations, which have been made as 
containing a general principle, there is, however, 
one idea implied which it is proper to notice, before 
taking leave of this topic. It is this : That no one 
and the same thing exists manifold at the same 
time. For very truly and philosophically do the 
Fathers teach, that when any thing is made, it then 
begins to exist. But as one thins: can have but one 



» 



1 Tertull. adv. Marcion, lib. iv. c. 40. [See above, page 127.] 

p Aug. Serm. ixxxvii, de Diversis. 

3 Idem, contra Faustum, lib. xx, c. 13. 

i Cyril, Ierosol. Catech. Mystag i, § 4. 

r Ambros., lib. de iis qui initiant., c. 9. 



204 ON THE EUCHARIST. 

creation, so it can have but one existence. Observe 
also : this is laid down as a universal law ; and 
from this law you may not except the mystery of 
the Eucharist, without first showing that the 
Fathers make such exception. But they no where 
do so ; consequently they utterly condemn that doc- 
trine, which teaches that the same real body and 
blood of Christ existed in a myriad of places, under 
as many forms, at one and the same time. 

Accept these considerations with assurances of 
the continued friendship of 

Your Brother, 

E. 0. P. 



LETTEK XII. 

SEVERAL OTHER POINTS RELATING TO THE EUCHARIST IN 
WHICH THE ANCIENT CATHOLIC AND THE PRESENT 
ROMAN CHURCHES DIFFER. 

Dear Brother: — In my last I discussed those 
kinds of expression in which the consecrated ele- 
ments are said to be, and to he made the body and 
blood of Christ. Closely allied to the latter of these 
is that other kind of phraseology, wherein these ele- 
ments are said to be changed into the body and 
blood of Christ. These also you cite as proving, 
that in the mind of antiquity, a physical change 
was intended. The nature of this change, as taught 
in your church, is expressed in the second canon 
of thirteenth session of the Council of Trent, as 
follows : 

"If anyone shall say that in the most holy sacra- 
ment of the Eucharist the substance of the bread 
and wine remains, together with the body and blood 
of our Lord Jesus Christ, and shall deny that won- 
derful and singular conversion of the whole sub- 
stance of the bread into his body, and the whole 
substance of the wine into his blood, the species of 
bread and wine only remaining, which conversion 
the Catholic Church most fitly terms transubstan- 
tiation ; let him be anathema." l 

Very fitly did the doctors of Trent call this 
affirmed change wonderful and singular ; for it is 
plainly no other than a destruction or annihilation 
of the substance of the bread and wine and the crea- 

1 See above, Letter ii, p. 22. 
18 



206 ON THE EUCHARIST. 

tion of another substance of an entirely different 
nature. _ That the ancient Fathers of the church 
had no idea of any such change in the consecrated 
elements is evident from the following: 

1. They distinguish the change or conversion of a 
thing from the abolition of its substance. 

Tertullian urges it as a great absurdity against 
certain errorists, that, according to them, "to be 
changed is to perish wholly from what it was 
before." 1 They denied the rising again of these 
same bodies at the resurrection ; to which he urges 
the language of the Apostle Paul [I Cor. xv,] to 
prove that there will be a change, but not a de- 
struction of our flesh. He affirms : "A change is 
one thing, destruction another. But the flesh will 
perish when changed if it shall not remain the same 
in the change as shall be exhibited in the resurrec- 
tion As therefore, that which is destroyed is not 

changed, so that which is changed is not destroyed. 
For to perish is altogether not to be what it had 
been ; but to be changed is to be otherwise than 
what it was. 

Moreover whilst it exists otherwise it can still 
exist, for it has a being which does not perish, for 
it surfer ed a change, but not destruction." A 

When controverting the error of the Eutychians, 
who thought the human nature of Christ was 
converted into his divinity, so that nothing of its 
substance remained after its assumption, Gelasius 
says: " By a union with the Deity, our condition 
would not seem to be glorified, but rather con- 
sumed, if in glory it does not subsist the same, but 
the Deity existing alone, the humanity now ceases 
to be there: ... in this manner, it will not be found 
to be sublimated, but rather abolished." B 

i Quasi demutari, sit in totum et de pristino perire. Tertull. 
de Resurrec. Carnis, c. 55. 
a ibid. B Gelas. de Duabus Naturis. 



CHANGE IS NOT DESTRUCTION. 207 

Tertullian says to Marcion: "If thou defendest 
a transfiguration and conversion of any substance 
whatever, in its transition, then Saul also, when 
changed into another man, went out of his body. 
So it is possible, in the event of the resurrection, 
that with the preservation of the substance, there 
should be change, conversion and reformation." c 
They lay down as general rules: "To be made 
does not signify a change of nature entirely." 
" Whatsoever the Holy Spirit touches, that is sanc- 
tified and changed." E And, " By the fire of the 
Holy Spirit, all things that we think, speak and do, 
are changed into a spiritual substance." F "For 
such as is that by nature which is received, into 
this it is necessary that the partaker should be 
changed. 

Plainly and philosophically therefore does anti- 
quity teach that change is not a destruction of 
substance ; but it is such a modification of that sub- 
stance, by the accession of new qualities, that it 
passes into another condition, or mode of existence. 
Not even when they speak of a change of substance, 
that is, a change which affects the substance, are 
we to understand them as teaching an abolition of 
that substance essentially, and the creation of some- 
thing else. This is that wonderful and singular 
conversion called transubstantiation, a something 
unique in the known universe of things created; 
perfectly isolated; and refusing any community 
with all the rest of God's wonderful works ! It is 
the annihilation of one substance and the creation 
of another already having an existence, but pre- 

c Tertull. de Resurr. Carn. c. 55. 

D Cyril, Alex. Thesaur. Assert. 20. 

E Cyril, Ierosol. Catecli. Mystag. v. 

F Hieron. in Ezekiel xliii. 

G Greg. Nyss. Homil. viii, in Ecclesiast. torn, i, p. 456. 



208 ON THE EUCHARIST. 

serving the same dimensions and weight, the same 
chemical and physical properties as the thing de- 
stroyed! Indeed, so entirely different is transub- 
stantiation from any known transmutation, that 
Scotus says: " Properly speaking, I say that tran- 
substantiation is not a change." H 

2. The Fathers make use of the same terms, ex- 
pressive of change and conversion, when speaking 
of other things in which, confessedly, there is no 
change of substance, as they do when treating of 
the Eucharist. 

"Let them learn," says Ambrose, "that nature 
can be changed when the rock flowed with water, 
and the iron swam above the water." 1 And when 
speaking of the waters of the Ked Sea and the river 
Jordan standing in heaps, he says: "Is it not clear 
that the nature of the waves of the sea and of the 
course of the water was changed ?" J " The hand of 
Moses was changed into snow," K says Epiphanius. 
And Chrysostom speaking of the Babylonian furn- 
ace, says : " The elements unmindful of their proper 
nature were changed into what was more profitable 
to them ; and the beasts were no longer beasts, nor 
the furnace a furnace." L And St. Augustine is 
bold to say, " By sin man fell from the substance in 
which he was made." M 

"When speaking of regeneration the Fathers use 
language equally strong, representing it as capa- 
ble of "changing us into the Son of God." N 

H Dist. iv, Art. xi, Sec. 1. 

1 Ainbros. in Hexsem., lib. iii, c. 2. 

J Idem, lib. cle iis qui initiat. c. 9. 

K Epiphan. Hseres. lxiv. 

L Chrysost. in Psal. x. 

M Enarrat. in Psal. lxviii, Serm. i, § 5. 

N Cyril, Alex. Dial, iii, de Trinit 



" CHANGE IS CONVERSION. 209 

"Our souls" says Macarius, "must be altered 
and changed from their present condition into 
another and divine nature." ° 

Gregory of Nyssen says: "They are no longer 
men who are introduced into the mysteries of this 
book, [Song of Songs ;] but are changed in nature, 
through the discipline of Christ, into something 
more divine. " p As already stated, he lays it down 
as a general principle, that the partaker is changed 
into that of which he partakes; which he illus- 
trates as follows: "For he who loves good, will 
himself become good, the goodness of that which 
exists in itself changing him who receives it into 
itself. For this cause he who always is, has offered 
himself to us to be eaten, that we receiving him 
into ourselves may be made that which he is. For 
he says, c my flesh is meat indeed, and my blood is 
drink indeed.'" 1 Again, "Paul did so manifestly 
imitate Christ, that in his own soul he showed his 
governing principle to have been changed, the very 
form of his soul being changed into the prototype, 
[Christ,] by the most exact imitation ; so that he 
no longer seemed to be that Paul who lived and 
spoke." 2 According to this., the imitators of Christ 
are changed into himself, being made partakers of 
the divine nature ; so that a Christian may as well 
be called Christ whole and entire, as the conse- 
crated Eucharist. 

When the ancient writers speak of our resur^ 
rection bodies and the incarnation of Christ, they 
deliver themselves in like terms. 

When speaking of the resurrection, Tertullian 
says: " We shall be changed, in a moment, into an 

°Macarii, Homil. xliv. 

p Greg. Nyss. in Cant. Horn. i. 

1 Idem, in Ecclesiast. Horn. viii. 

2 Idem, de Perf. Christi, torn, iii, p. 276. 

18* 



210 OX THE EUCHARIST. 

angelic substance. " Q He does not mean that the 
proper substance of our bodies will disappear, but 
only changed in its qualities so as to be like angels. 

Hilary expresses the same modification, as a 
" change of terrene bodies into a spiritual and 
ethereal nature." R 

Macarius speaking of the Saints says: "They 
are all changed into a divine nature." 8 "Let him 
come, let him come," says Chrysologus, speaking of 
Christ, "that he may repair our flesh, make our 
soul new, and change its very nature into a celes- 
tial substance." T Because at the resurrection there 
will be "Another form of this life, even a change of 
our nature." 17 "When our flesh is converted into 
the body of an angel. " v And " When it shall put 
on incorruption and immortality, it will no longer 
be flesh and blood, but will be changed into a celes- 
tial body." w .So of Christ, Gregory of Nyssen says : 
" After his resurrection he took a body transele- 
mented into incorruption." x And Chrysologus, 
speaking of his incarnation, says : " God is changed 
into man." Y 

To the water of baptism the ancients attri- 
buted the same change and efficacy, as they did to 
the bread and wine of the Eucharist. 

" The Ked Sea signified the baptism of Christ. 
Whence does the baptism of Christ look red unless 

Q Tertull. contra Marcion, lib. iii, c. ult. 

* Hilar, in Psal. cxxxviii. 

s Macar. Horn, xxxiv. 

T Chrysol. Serm. xlv. 

u Cyril, Alex. Orat. in Resur. Christi. 

v Aug„ Serm. xii, Edit. Sirmondo. 

w Aug. contra Adimant. c. 12. 

x Greg. Nyssen, in Cant. Canticorum, Horn. i. 

Y Chrysolog. Serm. xlv. 



WATER OF BAPTISM — HOW CHANGED. 211 

consecrated by the blood of Christ." 2 "Through 
the energy of the Spirit, the sensible water is trans- 
elemented into a certain divine and unspeakable 
power." 8 

Speaking of the Ethiopian eunuch, Jerome says: 
"Immediately he was baptized in the blood of the 
Lamb, about whom he was reading. The man de- 
served to be called an apostle; and was sent [as 
such] to the Ethiopians." 5 Laurentius Novarensis 
exclaims: "Thou shalt sprinkle me with water 
mixed with the sacred blood of thy Son." c And 
the writer, under the name of CaBsarius, says: 
" The soul goes into the living waters as if conse- 
crated red by the blood of Christ." d 

These passages show that, in the mind of these 
writers, the water of baptism is changed into the 
blood of Christ; that is, his efficacious blood, as will 
further appear from the following: "I am changed 
into Christ by baptism." 6 "He that is received by 
Christ and receives Christ, is not the same after 
baptism as he was before it ; but the body of the 
regenerate becomes the flesh of him who was cru- 
cified: this change is by the right hand of the 
Most High." f 

" The sensible water," says Cyril, as just quoted, 
"is transelemented into a certain divine and un- 
speakable power, and furthermore, sanctifies those 
upon whom it comes." g 

z Aug. Tract, xi, in Joan. 
a Cyril, Alex. Com. in Joan, iii, v. 5. 
b Hieron. Com. in Esaiam, liii, v. 7. 

c Laurent. Novar. Horn, i, de Poenitentia, Bibl. Patrum, 
torn, ii, p. 127. 
d Homil. v. 

e Greg. ISTazianz. Orat. xl. 
f Leo. Mag. de Passione Dom., Serm. xiv. 
g Com. in Joan. iii$ v. 5. 



212 ON THE EUCHARIST. 

" The water differs from trie spirit only in our 
conception, for it is the same in energy/' says 

AMOMIUS. h 

And Leno Veronensis says : " Our water receives 
the dead and vomits them forth alive, they being 
made true men of animals, and shall pass from 
men into angels." 1 

If this account be insufficient we may cite the 
rhetorical descriptions of St. John Chrysostom, who 
exclaims: "They who are baptized put on a royal 
garment, a purple dipped in the blood of the 
Lord." 1 Nay, "He who is baptized immediately 
embraces the Lord himself, is united to his body, 
and incorporated with that body which is seated 
above, whither the devil can have no access." 2 

The correspondent efficiency ascribed to the two 
Christian sacraments by the ancients, will very 
clearly appear, if we oompare these passages with 
what they say of the effects of the Eucharist. 

Gregory of Nyssen : " As a little leaven, accord- 
ing to the Apostles, likens the whole mass to itself, 
so the body put to death by God, coming into our 
body, converts and changes the whole into itself." 
And, "His immortal body being in him that re- 
ceives it, changes the whole into its own nature." 3 
"He that receives me by a participation of my 
flesh," says Cyril, "shall have life in himself, 
being wholly transelemented into me." j 

Leo the Great teaches that " we are the flesh of 
Christ taken from the womb of the Virgin," k 

h Amomius Catena, in Joan, iii, v: 

1 Zeno. Ver. Serm. ii, ad Neoph. post Baptism. 

1 Chrysost. Horn, lx, ad Illuminandos. 

2 Idem, Horn, vi, in Coloss. 

3 Greg. Nysseni, Orat. Catech., cxxxvii. 
J Cyril, Alex, in Joan., lib. iv, c. 3. 

k Leo. Mag. Serm. x, de Natur. Dom. 



WATER OF BAPTISM — EFFICACY OF. 213 

Also, " The participation of the body and blood of 
Christ intends no other, than that we should pass 
into that which we take.'' 1 And, "In that mysti- 
cal distribution of spiritual food, this is imparted ; 
this is taken ; that receiving the virtue of the celes- 
tial food, we should pass into the flesh of him who 
was made our flesh." 1 

And Fulgentius says : " No one of the faithful 
ought to be troubled about those who, with sound 
mind, are lawfully baptized, — although death over- 
take them before they are permitted to eat the flesh 
and drink the blood of the Lord — by reason of that 
declaration of our Saviour where he says : ' Except 
ye eat the flesh of the Son of man/ &c. — For who- 
soever shall consider the truth of the mystery, will 
see that this is done in the baptism of holy regene- 
ration." 111 

I have now shown from the usus loquendi of the 
ancients, that the terms change, conversion and their 
equivalents, do not signify, in their writings, any 
such transubstantiation of the eucharistic elements, 
as that now believed by Komanists to take place. 
All the change that was, in the early ages of the 
church, believed to be effected, was such a change 
of quality as was understood to take place in the 
water of baptism, the oil of chrism, and the like. 
Call this what we will, it was not considered as a 
change or destruction of the bread and wine, but 
only such a conversion, as was believed to be pro- 
duced by the descent of the Holy Spirit upon them, 
and so entering them and sanctifying them that 
they became the symbolical body and blood of 
Christ, and the vehicles of spiritual grace to the 
faithful. 

1 Idem, Serm. xiv, de Passione Christi. 
1 Idem, Epist. xxiii. See also a passage cited from Tlieo- 
dotus, above, p. 153. 
m Fulgent, de Baptism Ethiop., cap. xi, p. 611. 



214 ON THE EUCHARIST. 

The above discussion of this phraseology of the 
Fathers is a sufficient reply to all those passages 
brought by you from the ancient Liturgies, in 
which this mode of speaking is of frequent occur- 
rence. The Fathers undoubtedly taught, in their 
public Liturgies, the same doctrine in regard to the 
Eucharist that they taught in their individual 
writings ; therefore, the remarks which have been 
made in this communication, upon the use of 
certain modes of expression, are applicable to those 
passages in the Liturgies, in which the same 
phraseology occurs. 

II. There are other considerations which may be 
offered in this connection, as confirmatory of the 
interpretation which, has been given of the lan- 
guage of the ancient Fathers. 

1. Contrary to the express declarations of these 
writers, the advocates of transubstantiation teach, 
as a necessary consequence of this doctrine, that 
the wicked, equally with the good,, eat the real 
body of Christ in the Eucharist. 

Domino Soto says : " It is undoubtedly to be held 
that the body of Christ descends into the stomach, 
although it is taken by a wicked man." 

Aquinas teaches that " since the body of Christ 
always remains in the sacrament, until the sacra- 
mental species are corrupted, it follows also that 
wicked men eat Christ's body." a 

Aleusis also, noticing the opinion of some who 
thought that, as soon as the body of Christ was 
touched by a sinner's lips, it withdrew itself, says : 

1 Est indubie tenendum quod corpus [Christi] descendit 
in stomachum, etiamsi ab iniquo sumatur. Dom. Soto in 
Dist. iv, quest. 12, art. 1, No. 3. 

2 Cum corpus Christi in sacramento semper permaneat, 
donee species sacramentales corrumpantur, etiam injustos 
homines Christi corpus manducare consequitur. Aquin., 
Part, iii, quaest. 80, art, 3. 



WHO PARTAKE OF CHRIST'S BODY. 215 

"This opinion is erroneous, and manifestly con- 
trary to the holy [doctors ;] and therefore it is com- 
monly held, that in this there is no difference 
between the just and the unjust, since both take 
that true body of Christ in the sacrament/' And 
a little after he adds : " Whence it is to be granted, 
that the wicked take the thing of the sacrament 
which is the true body of Christ, which was born 
of the Virgin." 1 

So also they legitimately teach, that if " a dog, 
hog, or mouse eat the consecrated host, the sub- 
stance of Christ's body does not cease to exist under 
the species, so long as these species remain." 2 

2. It follows also from this doctrine that the real 
eating of Christ's body in the Eucharist is insepar- 
able from the sacramental eating, but distinct from 
the spiritual. This is evident from the decree of 
the Trent doctors, who pronounce that: 

" If any one shall affirm that Christ, as exhibited 
in the Eucharist, is eaten in a spiritual manner 
only, and not also sacramentally and really ; let 
him be anathema." 3 All this is plainly different 
from the teaching of the Fathers. 

1 Illud sentire erroneum est et manifeste contra sanctos; et 
ideo communiter teneturquod in hoc non est differentia inter 
justuni et injustum, quia uterque ipsum verum corpus Christi 
sumit in sacramento — Unde concedendum, quod mali sumunt 
rem sacramenti, quod est corpus Christi verum, quod natum 
est de virgine. Aleusis, Part, iv, qu. 11, memb. 2, art. 2, 
sec. 2. 

2 Dicendum, quod etiamsi mus vel canis hostiam consecra- 
tam manducet, substantia corporis Christi non desinit esse 
sub speciebus, quamdiu species illse manent. Aquinas, Part 
iii, qusest. 80, art. 3. Si canis velporcus deglutinat hostiam 
consecratam integram, non video quare vel quomodo corpus 
Domini non simul cum specie trajiceretur in ventrem canis 
vel porci. Aleusis in loco cit. sec. 1. See also the Roman 
Missal. 

3 Si quis dixerit, Christum in Eucharistia exhibitum, 
spiritualiter tantuin manducari, et nonetiam sacramentaliter 
ac realiter ; anathema sit. Sess. xiii, can. 8. 



216 ON THE EUCHARIST. 

I 

Origen, after speaking at some length of the 
partaking of the typical and symbolical body of the 
Lord, adds : "And much might be said concerning 
that Word who was made flesh, and that true meat 
which he that eateth shall live forever,, no vile per- 
son being able to eat this ; for if it were possible 
that he who still continues wicked should eat him 
who was made flesh, who is the Word and living 
bread, it would not have been written, that whoso- 
ever eateth this bread shall live forever." 11 

Speaking of those who love pleasure more than 
God, Jerome says: "Whilst they are not holy in 
body and spirit, they neither eat the flesh of Jesus, 
nor drink his blood, concerning which he says: 
'He that eateth my flesh and drinketh my blood 
hath eternal life.'" 

St. Augustine says : " Of that bread both Judas 
and Peter took part from the very hand of the 
Lord." p He means the sacramental bread without 
doubt ; for he elsewhere teaches that the disciples 
"ate the bread which is the Lord, but Judas the 
bread op the Lord, in opposition to the Lord ; they 
ate life, but he punishment.'" 1 Again he says: 
" The sacrament of this thing, that is, of the unity 
of the body and blood of Christ, is prepared upon 
the Lord's table, and is taken from the Lord's table, 
by some to life, by others to destruction. But the 
thing itself of which it is a sacrament, is for life to 
every man ; to no one whatever that partakes of it, 
shall it be for destruction." r Another passage cited 
by his disciple, Prosper, who gathered up the sen- 
tences of his master, is to the point : " He receives 

n Origen, Com. in Matt, torn, xi, No. 14. 
°Hieron. Com. in Esaiam lxvi, v. 17. 
p Aug. contra Donatist. cap. vi. 
«J Idem, Tract, lix, in Joan. 
r Tract, xxv i, in Joan. vi. 



WHO PARTAKE OF CHRIST'S BODY. 217 

the food of life, and drinks the cup of eternity, who 
abides in Christ, and whose inhabitant is Christ. 
For he who disagrees with Christ, neither eats his 
flesh nor drinks his blood, although he daily take 
with indifference the sacrament of so great a thing, 
to the condemnation of his presumption." 3 

Accordingly, the res sacramenti is received by 
the good only ; which flatly contradicts the lan- 
guage of transubstantiation. Indeed, the doctrine 
of antiquity is, that " the flesh of the Lord is the 
food of believers." 1 — "The meat of the saints." u — 
And "the bread of life." v For " he that receives 
this food is above death." w 

A passage or two from St. Augustine will 
further show, if need be, the distinction made by 
him between the sacramental and the real, or 
spiritual eating of Christ. " I have commended a 
certain sacrament unto you ; spiritually understood 
it shall quicken you. Although this must be cele- 
brated visibly, nevertheless it must be understood 
invisibly." x 

Having spoken of the healthful repast received, 
by a participation of the body and blood of Christ, 
he concludes: "But then, this shall be [the sum,] 
that is, the body and blood of Christ shall be life 
to every one, if what is visibly taken in the sacra- 
ment, be in very truth eaten and drank spiritual- 
ly." 7 Again, "When Christ says k He that eateth 
my flesh, and drinketh my blood, dwelleth in me 
and I in him,' he shows what it is, not in sacrament 

s Lib. Sentent. ex Aug., sent. 341, vel. 339. 

1 Hieron. in Oseam viii. 

u Isidor. Sevill., in Gen. xxxi. 

v Ambros. in Psal. cxviii. 

w Chrysost. in Joan vi,v. 49. 

1 Aug. Enarrat. in Psal. xcviii, § 9. 

y Aug. Serm. cxxxi, torn, v, p. 924. 

19 



218 ON THE EUCHARIST. 

only, but really to eat the body and drink tbe blood 
of Christ." 2 And this he makes equivalent to 
Christ's saying, "he that does not abide in me and 
I in him, should neither say nor think, that he eats 
my body and drinks my blood." 

They also distingush the bodily from the sacra- 
mental presence. "The flesh and blood of this 
sacrifice, before the advent of Christ, was pro- 
mised by victims of resemblance ; in the passion of 
Christ it was made by the truth itself; since the 
ascension of Christ, it is celebrated by the sacra- 
ment of memory." a 

The author of the Comment, on the Epistles of 
Paul, in the works of Jerome, remarks upon these 
words ; He took bread, and after he had given thanks 
he brake it; "That is, blessing us even when about 
to suffer, he left to us his last remembrance or 
memorial. As if any one going into a foreign 
country, should leave some pledge with him whom 
he loved, that as often as he should look upon it, 
he might call to mind his favors and friendships; 
which he, if he loved him perfectly, could not be- 
hold without great affection and weeping." 6 

Bede says : "As Moses bears witness of the tree 
of life being placed in the midst of Paradise, so by 
the wisdom of God, to wit, of Christ, the Church is 
quickened, of whom, even now in the sacraments of 
his flesh and blood, she receives the pledge of life ; 
and will hereafter be blessed with the sight of his 
presence." 1 

3. The ancients teach that Christ is corporeally 
absent from the earth. "Ascend with us," says 

z Idem, de Civitate Dei, lib. xxi, c. 25. 
« Idem, contra Faust, lib. xx, c. 21. 
6 Hieron. Com. in I Cor. xi. 

1 Beda in Prov. lib. i, c. 3. Vide et Primasius in I Cor. xi, 
et Chrysost. in I Cor. xi. 



CHRIST CORPOREALLY ABSENT IN HEAVEN. 219 

Ambrose, "that we may, with, our minds., follow 
thee whom we cannot see with our eyes. St. Paul 
has taught us how we should follow thee, and where 
Ave may find thee. ' Seek those things which are 
above where Christ sitteth,' &c. Therefore we 
ought not to seek thee upon the earth, nor in the 
earth, nor according to the flesh, if we would find 

thee Mary could not touch him because she 

sought him on the earth; Stephen touched him 
because he sought him in heaven ; Stephen among 
the Jews saw him absent." l Augustine assures us 
that "Our Lord absented himself in body from the 
whole church, and ascended into heaven that faith 
might be edified ; for if thou didst know nothing ex- 
cept what thou seest, where is faith." 2 " We believe 
in him who now sits at the right hand of the Father ; 
nevertheless, whilst we are in the body we are 
journeying in a strange country from him ; nor can 
we show him to those who doubt, or deny him, and 
say, where is thy God?" 3 "This," says Virgilius, 
"was to go to the Father and recede from us, to 
bear away from the world the nature which he took 
from us." 4 " When he was upon earth he was not in 
heaven; and now because he is in heaven, he surely 
is not upon the earth ; — and because the Word is 
everywhere, but his flesh is not everywhere, it appears 
that one and the same Christ is of both natures, 
and that he is everywhere according to the nature 
of his divinity, and is contained in place, according 
to the nature of his humanity. — This is the Catholic 
faith and confession which the Apostles delivered, 
the martyrs confirmed, and the faithful guard even 
now." 5 "When Christ was raised into heaven in 

1 Ambros. Com. in Luc. xxiv. 

2 Aug. de Tempore, Serm. cxl. 

3 Idem, Serm. lxxiv, de Diversis. 

4 Vigil. Taps, contra Eutych. lib. 1. 5 Idem, lib. 4. 



220 ON TUB EUCHARIST. 

the presence of his disciples, he made an end of his 
bodily presence." For "Christ ascending to his 
Father as a conqueror after his resurrection, cor- 
poreally left the church, which he has nevertheless 
never left destitute of the aid of his divine presence, 
always remaining in it, even to the consummation 
of the world." d Nay more, "How did he bodily 
ascend into heaven and still be said to be in his faith- 
ful ones upon the earth, unless the immensity of 
the divinity which can till heaven and e'arth is in 
him ?" * " Though Christ be out of the world in 
the flesh, nevertheless, he is present with those who 
are in him ; and his divine and unspeakable nature 
knows the universe, being absent from no creature, 
nor leaving any one, but is every where present to 
all, and fills all." 2 

If, according to these testimonies, Christ is both 
in heaven and on earth at the same time, only 
because he is divine, how shall his body be present- 
both in heaven and in the sacrament on earth, at 
the same moment, unless this also be divine? 

Your Brother, 

E. 0. P. 



c Leo Mag. Serai, ii, de Ascension Domini. 
d Beda, Com. in Marc xiii. 

1 Fulgent, ad Trasimund, lib. ii, c. 18. 

2 Cyril, Alex, in Joan ix, v. 5. 



LETTER XIII. 

EVIDENCE OF THE SENSES PATRISTICALLY CONSIDERED. 

Dear Brother: — -By your quoting that passage 
of Cyril of Jerusalem where he says : " That which 
seems to be bread is not bread, although perceptible 
to the taste, but the body of Christ ; and that which 
seems to be wine is not wine although to the taste 
it appear such, but the blood of Christ," * you 
confess the doctrine of transubstantiation to re- 
quire the rejection of the evidence, which the senses 
bear to the nature of the eucharistic elements. So 
the Roman Catechism admonishes : " The pastor 
will, first of all, impress on the minds of the faith- 
ful the necessity of detaching, as much as possible, 
their minds and understandings from the dominion 
of the senses ; for were they, with regard to this 
sublime mystery, to constitute the senses the only 
tribunal to which they are to appeal, the awful con- 
sequences must be their precipitation into the ex- 
treme of impiety. Consulting the sight, the touch, 
the smell, the taste, and finding nothing but the 
appearances of bread and wine, the senses must 
naturally lead them to think that this sacrament 
contains nothing more than bread and wine. Their 
minds, therefore, are as much as possible to be 
withdrawn from subjection to the senses, and ex- 
cited to the contemplation of the stupendous power 
of God." 2 



1 Cyril. Ierosol. Catech. Mystagog. iv, cap. 3. 

2 Roman Catechism, p. 206, cited by Elliott on Romanism, 
vol. i, p. 247. 

19* 



222 ON THE EUCHARIST. 

Having, in my sixth letter, made some general 
remarks on the testimony of the senses, and its im- 
portance in settling the foundations of the Chris- 
tian religion, I shall not here repeat what has been 
said, but will confine myself within the limits of 
such evidence as may be gathered from antiquity; 
especially, since you bring your appeal before the 
tribunal of the " Holy Fathers," and seem to pre- 
fer their judgment, before the decisions of reason 
and sense. 

And now I am bold to affirm, that the ancient 
Christian Fathers, rightly understood, do not reject 
the evidence which the senses bear, in regard to the 
physical properties of the eucharistic elements. 

In proof of this statement I offer you the fol- 
lowing: 

1. They appeal to these senses when they argue 
for the reality of Christ's human body in opposition 
to the error of the Marcionites, Valentinians and 
other false teachers, who said that our Saviour ex- 
isted only in appearance, as a phantasm. 

iRENiEUS says : " These things were not done in 
appearance only, but in the reality of truth ; for if 
he appeared to be a man when he was not, he 
neither remained the Spirit of God, which he was in 
truth, since a spirit is invisible, nor was there any 
truth in him; for those things were not what they 
appeared to be." A So certain does he consider 
the evidence of the senses, that he does not hesi- 
tate to try the truthfulness of the Son of God by 
their testimony ; and he thereby shows a willing- 
ness for the whole cause of Christianity to stand or 
fall with such evidence ; which would be the height 
of temerity, were such testimony to be regarded 
other than infallible. Again ; " As Christ there- 
fore rose again in the substance of flesh, and showed 

A Iren. adv. Hares, lib. v. c. 1. 



EVIDENCE OF THE SENSES. 223 

to his disciples the print of the nails and the open- 
ing of his side, but these are indications of his flesh 
which rose again from the dead, so also, he says, 
he will raise us by his power." l For the truth of 
the resurrection of Christ's flesh, the senses of his 
disciples are here produced as the witnesses ; and 
our certainty of a future resurrection of our bodies, 
is measured by the certainty of their testimony. 

Tertullian adopting Marcion's interpretation of 
the words of our Saviour to his disciples, " Behold 
it is I myself; for a spirit hath not flesh and bones 
as ye see me have," says, " Behold he cheats and 
deceives and circumvents the eyes, the senses, the 
approaches and touches of all men. Thou therefore 
shouldst not have brought Christ down from 
heaven, but from some company of jugglers." B 
"It is sufficient for me to define that which is 
agreeable to G-od, to wit, the truth of that thing 
which he has made an object of the three senses 
that bear testimony to it, namely, sight, hearing, 
and touch." Afterward he adds: "Now thou 
honorest thy G-od with the title of fallaciousness, 
if he knew himself to be something else than what 
he made men think he was." D Because he de- 
ceived their senses, which were their only medium 
of arriving at a knowledge of the reality of his body. 
Equally do Romanists, in rejecting the evidence of 
the senses-, attribute "the title of fallaciousness " to 
God the author of nature, who has made these ex- 
ternal senses the instruments by which we obtain a 
knowledge of the external world. 

And, "why does Christ offer to their inspection 
his hands and his feet, which members consist of 

i Idem, c. 7. 

BTertull. de Came Christ!, c. 5. 
c Idem, adv. Marcion, lib. iii, c. 10. 
D Idem, c. 11. 



224 ON THE EUCHARIST. 

bones, if be bad no bones? Why did be add, 
'And know that it is I myself/ whom they had be- 
fore known to be corporeal ?" E May we not with 
equal propriety ask: Why does he offer to our in- 
spection the accidents of bread and wine, if there 
be no bread and wine remaining there ; especially, 
since we have before known them to be bread and 
wine ? 

Augustine uses the following language: "Our 
eyes themselves do not deceive us; for they can 
report to the mind their own affection only. If 
any one think that an oar is broken in the water, 
and when removed thence, made whole again, he 
has not a bad reporter, but he is a bad judge. For 
the eye could not, according to its nature, perceive 
it otherwise in the water neither ought it : for if 
the air is different from water, it is just that it 
should be perceived in the air otherwise than in the 
water. Wherefore the eye sees rightly, for it was 
made only to see; but the mind judges wrongly." F 
Again he says: "There is no cause to doubt of 
Christ's resurrection, whose presence the eye re- 
cognizes, the hand handles, and the finger exam- 
ines If, perchance, we should say that the eyes 

of Thomas were deceived, we could not say that his 
hands were. For in the manifestation of his resur- 
rection, there might be uncertainty from the sight, 
but no doubt could arise from the touch." 6 More- 
over, "This which is like magic, ye are said to 
assert, that his passion and death were only in ap- 
pearance, and in a deceitful shadow, so that he 
seemed to die who did not die. From which it fol- 
lows that you say, that his resurrection also was 
shadowy, imaginary and fallacious; for there can 

E Idem, adv. Marcion, lib. iv, c. 43. 
F Aug. de Vera Religione, cap. xxxiii. 
G Idem, de Temp. Sermo. clxi. 



EVIDENCE OF THE SENSES. 225 

be no true resurrection of him who has not truly 
died: So it would follow that he also showed false 
scars to his doubting disciples; nor did Thomas 
exclaim, 'My Lord and my God' because he was 
confirmed by the truth, but deceived by a fallacy." 11 
And, " Who except demons that are the friends of 
cozenage, would persuade them that Christ suffered 
fallaciously, died fallaciously and showed his scars 
fallaciously?" 1 

Chrysostom represents Christ as saying: "It does 
not belong to me to deceive mine with a phantasm ; 
if the sight is afraid of a vain image, let the hands 
and fingers prove the truth of my body. Some 
mist may possibly deceive the eyes, but a corporeal 
touch knows a true body." J 

Hilary says : " He takes away the foolish rash- 
ness of those who contend that our Lord was seen 
in the flesh in a deceitful and false body ; that the 
Father, by giving the lie to the truth, showed him 
in the habit of false flesh, [as Romanists profess now 
to show his body in the habit of false bread,] not 
remembering that after the resurrection of his 
body, it was said to the Apostles, who believed they 
saw a spirit; ' Why are ye troubled/ &c. ' Behold 
my hands and my feet, that it is I myself, touch me 
and see, for a spirit hath not flesh and bones as ye 
see me have.' " K 

Epiphanius very largely argues the truth of 
Christ's body from what was sensibly done to it. 
His inquiry is: "How was he apprehended and 
crucified, who, according to thy saying, could not 
be touched ? For thou canst not define him to be 

H Idem, contra Faustum, lib. xxix, c. 2. 
1 Idem, lib. xiv, c. 10. 
J Chrysost. de Resurrec. Horn. ix. 
K Hilar, in Psal. cxxxvii. 



226 ON THE EUCHARIST. 

a phantasy who fell under the touch." L From the 
expression : " He was known to them in the break- 
ing of bread," he asks Marcion, "Whence was this 
breaking of bread ? Was it by a phantom or by a 
body bulky and truly acting ?' v:yi By a body truly 
acting as their senses could testify. In like man- 
ner may we affirm the eucharistic elements to be 
bread and wine but not flesh and blood. 

The general inference to be made from the fore- 
going testimonies is, that these Fathers could not 
have held and taught a doctrine which required 
them to reject the evidence of their senses ; for if 
they had, the errorists against whom they wrote 
would have replied to their discomfiture : " But you 
are not consistent ; you tell us not to trust to our 
senses when we approach the sacramental table of 
the Lord, assuring us, that although the consecrated 
elements appear to be bread and wine still, never- 
theless they are so changed into another substance, 
that the nature of the bread and wine is entirely 
lost. If therefore our senses may be deceived in a 
matter so common, and subject to the cognizance 
of thousands daily, through successive ages, as all 
believe, why are we charged with heresy for believ- 
ing that Christ came not into the world with real 
flesh and bones like ourselves, but only so in ap- 
pearance? You also teach the insecurity and dan- 
ger of trusting to what the senses report ; we there- 
fore, no more than yourselves, are guilty of the 
severe charge of absurdity, impiety and blas- 
phemy." 

But since no such objection was ever made by 
those most acute and subtle opposers of the Chris- 
tian faith, it is morally certain that the doctrine of 
transubstantiation was unknown to the ancient 
church. 

L Epiphan. Hseres. xlii, Refert. 4. 
MIdem, Ref. 77. 



EVIDENCE OP THE SENSES. 227 

2. Nevertheless, it is objected, that some of the 
Fathers exhort to disregard the evidence of the 
senses, when we contemplate the mystery of the 
Eucharist. Thus Cyril of Jerusalem says : " That 
which seems to be bread is not bread, although per- 
ceptible to the taste, but the body of Christ; and 
that which seems to be wine is not wine, although 
to the taste it appears such, but the blood of 
Christ." l 

Chrysostom says : " The Word of God is superior 
to sight; and so should we do in the mysteries, not 
looking only upon those things which lie before us, 
but holding fast his words. For his word does not 
deceive, but our sense is easily led astray." 2 

As these passages appear contradictory of those 
just produced, and seem to present an objection 
against the trust-worthiness of our bodily senses, in 
the testimony which they bear to the nature of the 
eucharistic symbols, it is important to give them a 
careful examination. 

In the first place, it may be remarked, that 
signs are of two kinds. The first kind has a 
conformity of lineament with the prototype, as the 
portrait of a man. The other has not this sensible 
conformity. Thus, the rain-bow is a sign that the 
earth shall no more perish by a flood. The former is 
significant, in proportion to the fitness and perfec- 
tion of the visible representation, and is a proper 
object of sense; the latter takes its significance 
from the will of the institutor ; and is not simply 
an object of mere sense. The first we judge by 
sense, the second we judge not by sense, but by 
that faith which we are enabled to exercise in the 
authority of the institutor. To this latter class, 
belong the eucharistic symbols. They have not the 
visible exterior lineament and shape of the being 

i Ubi Sup. citat. 2 chrysost. in Matt, Horn. 82 al 83, § 4. 



228 ON THE EUCHARIST. 

represented, but they are signs of that being, because 
they have been constituted such by our Lord Jesus 
Christ. St. Augustine says: "These things, my 
brethren, are therefore called sacraments, because 
in them one thing is seen, another is understood." 1 
And, " Because the sacraments are signs of things, 
they are one thing in their [visible] existence, 
another in their signification." N In giving a gen- 
eral rule in this case, he says: "I say this, treat- 
ing of signs, let no one attend to what they are in 
themselves, but rather to what they are signs of, 
that is, what they signify." 2 

It was this invisible signification and sup- 
posed efficacy of the Eucharist which the ancients 
contemplated by faith, not by sense ; but they never 
deny the testimony of the sight, so far as it regards 
the external symbols of bread and wine. 

Chrysostom bears a lucid testimony to this effect. 
"It is called a mystery, because we contemplate 
not what we see; but we contemplate one thing, 
and believe another. For such is the nature of our 
mysteries. In regard to them, therefore, we are 
affected differently, I in one way, the unbeliever in 
another. When he hears of baptism, he thinks of 
the water simply, but I do not simply look at what 
is seen, but also to the cleansing of the soul hy the 
Holy Spirit ; he thinks that my body only is washed, 
but I believe that the soul is made pure and holy ; 
and I consider the burial, resurrection, sanctifica- 
tion, righteousness, redemption, adoption, the in- 
heritance, the kingdom of heaven and the gift of 
the Spirit. For I do not judge of the things which 
are indicated, by sight, but with the eyes of the 
mind. I hear, 'the body of Christ/ and I under- 

i Serm. ad recent Bap. apud Bedam et alios. 
N Contra Maxim, lib. iii, c. 22. 
2 De Doctr. Christi, lib. ii, c. 1. 



EVIDENCE OF THE SENSES. 229 

stand what is said in - one way, the unbeliever in 
another." This he admirably illustrates still farther, 
as follows: "And, as children looking upon books, 
know not the power of the letters, nor understand 
what they see ; nay, even though he be a man un- 
skilled in letters, the same thing will happen to 
him ; but the man of skill will discover much hidden 
power laid up therein, complete lives and histories. 
And when an unskillful man receives a letter, he 
supposes it to be paper and ink only; but he that 
has skill hears a voice and converses with him who 
is absent, and replies again by letters whenever he 
wishes. So also it is in a mystery ; the unbelievers, 
although they hear, yet seem not to hear, but the 
believers having skill by the Spirit, see its hidden 
power." 1 

It appears, therefore, that in the sacrament of 
the Eucharist two things were considered, namely, 
the visible symbols of bread and wine, and their 
sacramental .reason, or signification, which is ac- 
quired by consecration. It is this latter element of 
the Eucharist to which both Cyril and Chrysostom 
refer when they teach that the sense is not to be 
credited when we look upon the elements, as will 
further appear. 

3. From the fact that the Fathers use similar 
language when speaking of the water of baptism, 
and other things, in regard to which, no one doubts 
the correctness of the information obtained through 
the senses. 

G-elasius Cyzicenus says : " Our baptism is not 
to be contemplated with the eyes of sense, but with 
those of the mind." 

" You ought not," remarks Augustine, "to estimate 
these waters with your eyes, but with your mind." p 

1 Chrysost. in I Cor. Homil. vii, § 1. 
°Gelas. Cyzicen. in Diatyposi, cap. 4. 
p Aug. Serm. xl, a Sirmondo Edit. 



230 ON THE EUCHARIST. 

Ambrose observes: "As to what you have seen, 
to wit, the waters, and not those alone, but the 
Levites there ministering, and the bishops asking 
questions and consecrating ; first of all the Apostle 
has taught thee, not to contemplate those things 
which are seen by us, but those that are not seen; 
because those that are seen are temporal, but those 

that are not seen are eternal Do not therefore 

believe thy bodily eyes alone. That is rather seen 
which is not seen, because that is temporal, but 
this is looked upon as eternal, which is not com- 
prehended by our eyes, but is seen by our mind and 
understanding." Q 

So also the author of the Book of Sacraments in 
Ambrose speaks : " What you have seen you could 
behold with your bodily eyes, and with human 
sight; but you saw not those things which are 
operated, and are not seen. Much greater are 
those which are not seen, than those which are 
seen; because those that are seen, are temporal, 
but those not seen, are eternal." R 

Cyril of Jerusalem says: "Come not to baptism 
as to mere water, but as to spiritual grace given 
with the water. — The water indeed purifies the 
body, but the Spirit seals the soul. — Therefore, do 
not attend to the simple element of water." s Also, 
when speaking of chrism, he says: "But see that 
you do not consider that to be mere ointment. — 
This holy ointment is not mere, nor, so to speak, 
common ointment, after the invocation, but the 
grace of Christ and the Holy Spirit." 1 

Chrysostom, when speaking of baptism, also says : 
" Let us believe the declaration of God, for this is 

Q Ambros. de his qui initiant., c. 3. 
K Lib. i, cap. 3. 

s Cyril, Ierosol. Catech. Illuminat. iii, § 2. 
1 Idem, Catech. Mystagog. iii, § 3. 



EVIDENCE OF THE SENSES. 231 

more credible than sight; for the sight is often de- 
ceived, but that cannot possibly fail." T This kind 
of expression is frequent with this writer. In one 
place he exhorts to give alms to the poor, "as if we 
were giving them to Christ; for his words are more 
credible than sight." And when a poor man is 
seen, he bids us "remember the words whereby 
Christ signified that he himself is fed. For al- 
though what is seen is not Christ, yet, under this 
form, he asks and receives alms." u The meaning 
of which is: "When you see a man apparently 
needy, give him alms, though you cannot, by his 
simple appearance, determine whether he is ac- 
tually an object of charity; for, in so doing, you 
will be certain to act according to the command of 
Christ, which is so plainly revealed, that it cannot 
be mistaken, though you may sometimes err in the 
selection of the object of your beneficence." In 
this sense he is doubtless right when he says, 
the word of God is more to be believed than 
our sight. 

In the same way are we to understand the Fa- 
thers, when they tell us not to believe our sight, 
in the matter of the sacraments. They mean, that 
we are not to form our judgment of their sanctifi- 
cation and efficacy from their visible appearance ; 
for the effect of the believed operation of the Holy 
Spirit upon them, was considered as something be- 
yond the province of sense. The mind only, they 
considered capable of contemplating the wonderful 
moving of the Spirit, in and by the symbols of the 
bread and wine of the Eucharist, of the water of 
baptism, and of the ointment of chrism. They did 
not, therefore, reject the evidence of the senses in 
matters properly cognizable by our corporeal or- 

T Chrysost. in Joan., Homil. xxiv. 
u Idem, in Matt, Homil. lxxxix. 



232 ON THE EUCHARIST. 

gans; for this they deny, both in their reasoning 
with their opponents, as we have already seen. 

4. In direct terms, when they unequivocally tell 
us, that the senses are faithful and infallible guides 
to the truth. Thus, Chrysostom defines deception 
to consist in a thing " not appearing to be what it 
is, but in appearing to be what it is not." v And 
in another place he declares, that "through these 
senses we learn all things accurately, and we con- 
sider them instructors worthy of belief in what we 
see or hear, seeing that they neither feign nor 
speak falsely." w Agreeably to the foregoing, 
another writer affirms, that "we know the whole 
world by the apprehension of sense ; and through 
that energy, which is according to our sense, we 
are led unto the conception of the thing and idea 
which is beyond the sense; and the eye is made to 
us the interpreter of the wisdom of the Almighty, 
which is everywhere seen, indicating through itself 
Him who embraces all things. " x "For what in 
our members is deserving of more honor than the 
eyes? Through these we apprehend the light ; by 
them we recognize those who are our friends and 
who our enemies; and distinguish what is our own 
from what belongs to another : they are the guides 
and teachers of every work, and the natural and 
inseparable conductors of an unerring journey." Y 

How comprehensive is this language; no less 
than the whole world is the field of our sensible 
apprehension ; nothing less is our eye than the in- 
terpreter of the wisdom of God, the guide and 
teacher of every work, and the conductor of the 
way, without error. But false, utterly false is all 

yChrys. in Ep. ad Eph., Horn. xiii. 

w Idem, in Joan., Homil. xxx al xxix, § 1. 

x Gregor. Kyssen, de Anima et Resurrec, torn, iii, p. 188. 

T Idem, Horn, vii, in Cantic. Canticorum, torn, i, p. 577. 



EVIDENCE OF THE SENSES. 233 

this, if the eye, together with the other senses, is 
not to be credited in the interpretation which it 
gives of the nature of the eucharistic symbols. 

Should we travel back to a still earlier age of 
the Christian church, and visit that famous School 
of Alexandria, in Egypt, we might hear its learned 
master speaking as follows, when instructing his 
pupils about the nature of syllogistic reasoning, a 
notable method of ratiocination in the times of 
classic antiquity. " Either all things need to be 
demonstrated, or some are credible of themselves. 
But, if the former be true, we shall proceed to infinity 
in seeking a demonstration of each demonstration, 
and thus the demonstration will be destroyed ; but 
if the latter be true, then those very things which 
are of themselves credible, will constitute, the be- 
ginnings of the demonstrations. Now philosophers 
confess the beginnings of all things to be inde- 
monstrable; so that, if there be a demonstration, there 
is every necessity that, in the first place, there be 
something credible of itself, which is called prime, 
and indemonstrable. Every demonstration then, is 
reduced to an indemonstrable source of belief. But 
there are also other beginnings of demonstrations 
besides the fountain of belief, namely, those things 
which appear evident to sense and mental percep- 
tion. For those that meet the sense are simple and 
incapable of analysis; and those that appear to 
the mental perception, are simple, logical and 
prime." And he concludes by saying : "If any one 
begins with these things which are clear to sense 
and mental perception, and then brings a fit con- 
clusion, he truly demonstrates." 2 

A little after when he treats of the analysis of 
the demonstration, he says; "Each of those things 
demonstrated, is demonstrated by certain other 

z Clement. Alex. Stromat. lib. viii, c. 3. 
20* 



234 ON THE EUCHARIST. 

demonstrations, and these previously demonstrated 
by others, until we run back to things of them- 
selves credible, or to those evident to sense and 
mental perception." 81 By "those things of them- 
selves credible" he means the axioms, or first prin- 
ciples of knowledge, which lie at the very founda- 
tion of science, such as, the whole is greater than 
its part; two things which are equal to a third, 
are equal the one to the other, and the like. And 
by his classing our perceptions by the senses with 
these elementary truths, and laying them at the 
bottom of all reasoning, he shows, like a true phi- 
losopher, the credibility of our external senses; 
nay, their absolute certainty of the things to which 
they bear testimony. 

Contemporary with Clemens Alexandrinus, flour- 
ished Tertullian in the Latin Church, well known 
as an eloquent and zealous defender of the Christian 
doctrines. In his book, "On the Soul," he makes a 
bold attack upon the Academicians who condemned 
the testimony of the five senses, because the ideas 
obtained through them, are sometimes found to dis- 
agree with the truth. They argued, that "to the 
sight, an oar partly under the water, appears bent 
or broken ; to the touch, the pavements appear less 
rough to the feet than to the hands ; to the hear- 
ing, thunder may be mistaken for a common vehi- 
cle, and vice versa; to the smell and taste, the same 
ointments and wines by subsequent use, appeared 
depreciated. Therefore they said; 'Thus are we 
deceived by the senses until we change our opin- 
ions/ ' : In reply, our author considers the decep- 
tion attributable, neither to the things themselves, 
nor to the senses, but to certain intervening con- 
ditions. 

"For," says he, "though in the water the oar 
appears bent or broken, the water is the cause of 

* ibid. 



EVIDENCE OP TEE SENSES. 235 

the deception. In short, without the water the oar 
is to the sight whole; — In this manner, therefore, 
no mistake of the senses will be without its cause. 
Since, if the causes deceive the senses, and through 
the senses the opinions, the fallacy is to be attri- 
buted neither to the senses which follow the causes, 
nor to the opinions which are directed by the 
senses, following the causes. They are insane who 
see beings of one kind in those of another, as Ores- 
tes mistook his sister for his mother, and Ajax a 
flock of sheep for Ulysses, as Athamas and Agave, 
their children, for wild beasts. Will you reproach 
the eyes, or the Furies, with this deception?" He 
goes on to exculpate the causes from blame and 
adds: "If, therefore, even the very causes are ac- 
quitted of dishonor, how much more the senses 
which are preceded by the causes ; seeing that the 
verity, credibility, and integrity of the senses, are 
hence most effectually vindicated; since they do 
not report otherwise than what that condition 
demands, which causes something to be reported 
by the senses otherwise than it exists in the things. 
What doest thou, most malapert Academy? 
Thou overturnest the whole state of life, thou dis- 
turbest all the order of nature, thou darkenest the 
providence of God, who [according to thee] has 
placed the senses, deceitful and false masters, over 
all his works, in order to understand, inhabit, dis- 
pense and enjoy them. By these is not every con- 
dition served ? Through these does not favorable 
instruction also come to the world ? So many arts, 
so many devices, so many sciences, business, offices, 
commerce, remedies, counsels, solaces, provisions, 
dress, ornament and all things? They season ail 
the enjoyment of life ; so that through these senses 
man alone of all animals is distinguished as ra- 
tional, capable of intelligence and learning in sci- 
ence." He after this breaks out: " It is not lawful, 



236 ON THE EUCHARIST. 

it is not lawful to us to call into doubt these senses, 
lest also a question arise concerning their credit in 
Christ, lest perchance it be said that he falsely 
beheld Satan cast down from heaven, or falsely 
heard the voice of his Father testifying of him, or 
was deceived when he touched the mother of Peter's 
wife, or afterward perceived another odor of the 
ointment which he accepted for his burial, and 
afterward perceived another taste of the wine 
which he consecrated in memory of his blood. For 
so does Marcion prefer to believe him a phantasm, 
scorning the verity of an entire body in him. But 
it was not his nature to play the mock upon the 
Apostles. Faithful was their sight and hearing 
upon the Mount; faithful the taste of that wine at 
the marriage of Galilee, although water before; 
faithful was the touch of Thomas, 1 who thenceforth 
believed. Kecite the testimony of John: 'What 
we have seen,' says he, 'what we have heard, and 
seen with our eyes, and our hands have handled of 
the word of life.' False therefore is his -testi- 
mony, IF THE SENSE OF SIGHT, HEARING AND TOUCH 
GIVES THE LIE TO NATURE." 5 

Comment upon language so plain and decisive 
is needless. I will produce another short passage 
only from this author, who, upon the words " Wo 
unto them that make siveet, bitter, and put darkness 
for light," thus remarks: "The prophet doubtless 
designates those that do not preserve these words 
in their proper light ; that the soul is nothing else 
than what it is called, and flesh nothing else than 
what is seen, and God no other than he is declared 

1 Origen, when writing against the infidel Celsus, argues 
the touch of Thomas, as proving that Christ suffered real 
wounds, and assumes the infallibility of the senses through- 
out. Vid. Orig. contra Celsum, lib. ii, § CO, et seq. 

b Tertull. lib. de AnimaB, c. 17. 



EVIDENCE OF THE SENSES. 237 

to be." c He makes the sight the judge of what is 
flesh, and by consequence of what is not flesh, for 
it would be absurd to say that, the sight is compe- 
tent to determine what any one thing is, while it 
is incapable of distinguishing that given thing from 
other objects. So diametrically opposed to the 
dogma of Rome are the ancient Christian Fathers. 
Well may we conclude, that the unphilosophical 
doctrine of tran substantiation was altogether un- 
known, during the early ages of Christianity. 

5. I will close my citations from the Fathers 
with a passage from St. Augustine, together with 
the remarks which the learned Bingham makes 
upon it. He says; "St. Austin uses the same ar- 
gument with Tertullian in one of his homilies 
to the newly baptized ; which, though it be not 
now among St. Austin's works, yet it is preserved 
by Fulgentius — de Bapt. iEthiop. c. xi, — Bede, in 
I Cor. x, — and Bertram, de Corp. et Sang. Dom. 
Here instructing them about the sacrament he tells 
them ; ' This which you see upon the altar of God, 
you also saw last night; but what it is, what it 
means, and of how great a thing it contains a 
sacrament, you have not yet heard. What you see 
therefore is bread and the cup, which your own 
eyes report to you. But that about which your 
faith requires to be instructed, is that the bread is 
the body of Christ. But such a thought as this 
will presently arise in your hearts: Christ took 
his body into heaven, whence he shall come to judge 
the quick and the dead ; and there he now sits at 
the right hand of the Father. How then is bread 
his body? Or how is the cup, or what is contained 
in the cup his blood? These things, my brethren, 
are therefore called sacraments because in them 
one thing is seen, and another is understood. That 

c Tertull. de Carnc. Christi, c. 24. 



238 ON THE EUCHARIST. 

which is seen has a corporal species, that which is 
understood has a spiritual fruit. If therefore you 
would understand the body of Christ, hear what 
the Apostle says to the faithful ; Ye are the body 
of Christ and his members. If, therefore, ye be the 
body and members of Christ, your mystery or sacra- 
ment is laid upon the Lord's table; ye receive the 
sacrament of the Lord. Ye answer, amen, to what 
ye are, and by your answer subscribe to the truth 
of it. Thou hearest the minister say to thee, ' The 
body of Christ/ and thou answerest, amen. Be 
thou a member of the body of Christ that thy amen 
may be true. 

" But why then is this mystery in bread ? Let us 
here bring nothing of our own, but hear the Apos- 
tle speak again. When therefore he speaks of 
this sacrament, he says, We being many are one 
Bread, and one Body. Understand and rejoice. 
We being many are unity, piety, truth and charity, 
one Bread and one Body. Recollect and consider 
that the bread is not made of one grain, but of 
many. When ye were exorcised, ye were then, as 
it were, ground; when ye were baptized, ye were, 
as it were, sprinkled, or mixed and wet together 
into one mass ; when ye received the fire of the 
Holy Ghost, ye were, as it were, baked. Be ye 
therefore what ye see, and receive what ye are." d 

Upon this passage Bingham makes the following 
appropriate remarks : " Here St. Austin first says 
plainly, that it was bread and wine that was upon 
the altar, for which he appeals to the testimony of 
the senses. 2. That this very bread and wine is the 
body and blood of Christ. Consequently it could 
not be his natural body in the substance, but only 
sacramentally. 3. He says, the natural body of 

d Aug. Serm. ad recent. Baptizat. apud Fulgent., Bedam et 
Bertram. 



EVIDENCE OF THE SENSES. 239 

Christ is only in heaven ; but the sacrament has the 
name of his body, because, though in outward, visible 
and corporeal appearance, it is only bread, yet it is 
attended with a spiritual fruit 4. Lastly, he says 
that the sacrament is not only a representation of 
the natural body of Christ, but also of the mystical 
body, the Church ; and that as a symbol of the 
church's unity, it is called the body of Christ in this 
sense, as well as the other. So that if there were 
any real transubstantiation, the bread must be 
changed into the mystical body of Christ, that is, 
his Church, as well as into the body natural." 

6. We have now seen that the Fathers regarded 
the evidence of the senses as infallible in all matters 
]3roperly cognizable by them, and that when speak- 
ing of the sacraments, they exhort to discredit these 
senses, they have reference to their sacramental 
reason, but not to their material qualities. In order 
to render our discussion of this subject more com- 
plete, it seems highly proper to glance again briefly 
at those passages of Cyril and Chrysostom, which 
the abettors of transubstantiation produce to dis- 
prove the testimony which the senses bear to the 
nature of the eucharistic elements. For I suppose 
that any given passage of an author is to be inter- 
preted according to the evident scope and design, 
not only of all his written productions, but also of 
the context in which it is fouud, not by seizing 
upon isolated expressions and judging of them by 
their literal meaning, irrespective of what precedes 
or follows. A few passages from the Mystagogical 
lecture of Cyril, will enable us to see its general 
scope and design. He observes : "And this teach- 
ing of the blessed Paul, is sufficient to assure you con- 
cerning the divine mysteries ; being made worthy 
of which, ye were made the same body and blood 
with Christ. For he of late exclaimed, that 'in 
that night in which our Lord Jesus Christ was be- 



240 ON THE EUCHARIST. 

trayecl, having taken bread and given thanks, he 
broke and gave to his disciples, saying, Take eat, 
this is my body. And having taken the cup and 
given thanks, he said: Take drink, this is my 
blood .... for in the type of bread his body is given 
thee, and in the type of wine his blood is given 
thee ; so that, partaking of the body and blood of 
Christ thou mayst be made the same body and 
blood with him. For so we are made Christ-bearers 
when his body and blood are imparted into our 
members, so that, according to blessed Peter, we are 
made partakers of the divine nature.' When Christ 
formerly addressed the Jews, he said: 'Except ye 
eat my flesh and drink my blood ye have not life 
in yourselves.' But they not understanding those 
things spiritually spoken, and being scandalized, 
went back, supposing they were exhorted to the 
eating of his flesh. There was under the Old -dis- 
pensation the shew-bread, but this has come to an 
end. But in the New dispensation, there are tbe 
heavenly bread and the cup of salvation which 
sanctify the soul and body. As bread is adapted 
to the body, so the Word is suited to the soul. 
Therefore consider them not as mere bread and 
mere wine. For they are, according to the word of 
the Lord, the body and blood of Christ. Although 
the sense suggest this to thee, nevertheless let faith, 
confirm thee. Nor shouldst thou judge the thing 
by the taste, but by a faith assured beyond a doubt, 
being accounted worthy the body and blood of 
Christ. And David explains to thee the force of 
this, when he says : ' Thou preparedst a table be- 
fore me in the presence of mine enemies.' What 
he says is something like this: Before thy advent 
demons prepared a table for men, which was 
polluted and defiled, and full of diabolical power ; 
but after thy advent, O Lord, thou didst prepare a 
table before me. When man says to God : ' Thou 



EVIDENCE OF THE SENSES. 241 

hast prepared a table before me/ what else does he 
mean but that mystical and spiritual table which 
God has prepared for us in opposition and instead 
of that prepared by demons ? And very fitly so, 
for that had communion of devils, but this com- 
munion of G-od ' And thy cup which intoxicates 

me, how excellent.' You see here the cup is spoken 
of which Jesus took in his hands, and giving thanks, 
said: 'This is my blood which is shed for many for 
the remission of sins.' Therefore Solomon, obscurely 
denoting this grace, says in Ecclesiastes : ' Come, eat 
thy bread with joy,' that is, spiritual bread. Come, 
make a healthful and blessed invocation. 'And 
drink thy wine with a good heart,' that is, spiritual 
wine Having learned this, and having been as- 
sured that that which seems to be bread is not 
[mere] bread, although perceptible to the taste, but 
the body of Christ, and that that which seems to be 
wine is not [mere] wine, although to the taste it 
appear such, but the blood of Christ; and that 
David of old time, spake in the Psalm concerning 
this : 'And bread strengthenth the heart of man, 
and with oil his face is gladdened;' do thou, partak- 
ing of this [bread] as spiritual, strengthen thy heart, 
and gladden the face of thy soul." l 

Such is the language of more than half of this 
short lecture of Cyril; and yet a single passage is 
selected from it, without regard to its general scope, 
to prove that our senses are not to be believed, in 
the testimony which they bear to the nature of the 
eucharistic elements; whereas, nothing can be more 
evident than the fact, that throughout this lecture, 
the author discourses of the spiritual manducation 
of Christ's body in the Eucharist, whose presence 
is not to be "judged by the taste, but by a faith 
assured beyond a doubt." I wonder that men of 

1 Cyril, Ierosol. Cateeh. Mystagog.lv. 
21 



242 ON THE EUCHARIST. 

honest sincerity can make such a garbled use of the 
writings of the ancient dead. It must be a bad 
cause that requires such a perversion of their plain 
meaning. 

Let us pass to the golden-mouthed orator of Con- 
stantinople. "We believe God everywhere and 
contradict nothing, although what is said seem op- 
posed to our reasonings and sight; but let his 
word be superior to our reasonings and sight; and 
so should we do in the mysteries not looking only 
upon those things which lie before us, but holding 
fast his words. For his word does not deceive, but 
our sense is easily led astray. That has never 
failed, this is often deceived. Since therefore the 
word says, ' This is my body,' let us be persuaded 
and believe, and contemplate it with spiritual eyes. 
For Christ has delivered to us nothing [merely] 
sensible, but by things sensible he has delivered 
all things spiritual. For thus also in baptism, by 
a sensible thing, the gift of water is made ; but that 
which is wrought is spiritual, the birth and regen- 
eration, or renovation. For if thou wert incorpo- 
real he had delivered these gifts naked and incor- 
poreal; but since the soul is connected with a body, 
he has delivered to thee the spiritual in the sensi- 
ble. How many now say, I would see his form, 
his figure, his garments and sandals ? 

"Behold thou seest him, thou touchesthim, thou 
eatest him. And thou desirest to see his garments : 
but he gives himself to thee not to see only, but 
also to touch, and to eat and take within. " E 

This passage needs no explanation. Whoever 
reads may understand that Chrysostom speaks of 
the spiritual, but not the sensible part of the Eu- 
charist, when he says, "let his word be superior to 
and sight." The explanation which 

E Chrysost. in Matt, Horn, lxxxii al lxxxiii, § 4. 



EVIDENCE OF THE SENSES. 243 

has been given above of the language of the Fathers 
is, therefore, fully confirmed by an impartial and 
candid examination of the context. 

I have dwelt upon this subject of the testimony 
of the senses, because of its importance ; and I have 
preferred to allow the Fathers to discuss it in their 
own language ; not because they speak more truly 
or more authoritatively than the true and Protes- 
tant Church of Grod now utters her caution against 
that fatal delusion, which requires the rejection of 
the evidence of the senses, in a matter as properly 
an object of their observation as any other, and in 
regard to which, their testimony is as reliable as it 
is respecting any thing else in nature. Indeed, no 
less do the principles involved in t ran substantia- 
tion, than those of the ancient school-men, " over- 
turn the whole state of life, disturb all the order of 
nature, and darken the providence of God." And 
we may acid, sap the very foundation of all revealed 
religion, by destroying the credibility of the testi- 
mony of those who heard the words of the Lord, 
and testified to the signs and wonders wrought in 
confirmation of their divine origin. 

Should it however be objected that " the senses 
cannot determine the composite nature of things, 
but only their tactual and apparent qualities;" 
we answer ; this only is their proper sphere of ob- 
servation. It is not necessary to the credibility of 
the senses, that they be able to determine the chemi- 
cal elements, or ultimate atoms of bodies: it is 
enough that they confine themselves to those prop- 
erties usually denominated natural. Otherwise we 
should be led into very strange and even absurd 
speculations respecting the general experience of 
mankind. If it be allowed that the senses are in- 
competent judges of things, because they cannot 
ascertain the nature of the ultimate particles of 
bodies, then it will follow, that for the thousands 



244 ON THE EUCHARIST. 

of years preceding the revelations of modern science, 
the whole world has been unable to determine 
whether iron were gold, whether wood were stone, 
whether bread were flesh, or water were fire, or 
something else. Besides, if the senses must be re- 
jected because of this inability to scan the secret 
recesses of nature's laboratory^ then there is a ne- 
cessity of putting to the test of scientific analysis, 
every article of merchandise before the buyer can 
be absolutely certain that he is not deceived in the 
object of his purchase. Nay, he can never arrive 
at such certainty because the analysis cannot be 
made without their aid. But the general senti- 
ment of mankind is not yet prepared to adopt 
a principle so repugnant to universal experience. 

It is with the natural philosophy of bodies that 
the bodily senses are concerned ; and within this, 
their appropriate circle, they serve to discriminate 
and determine with a certainty that knows no su- 
perior within the created universe. 

Believe me yours truly, 

E. 0. P. 



LETTER XIV. 

HALF-COMMUNION. 

Dear Brother: — Having examined the testi- 
mony of antiquity in proof of a figurative presence 
of Christ's flesh and blood in the Eucharist, I pass 
to the consideration of several usages connected 
with the celebration of this sacrament, wherein the 
ancient Christians' differ from the present practices 
of the Papal church. The Council of Trent teaches 
very consistently with the doctrine of transubstan- 
tiation, and what appears to be a legitimate conse- 
quence of it, that "Christ entire is contained under 
every part of each species when a separation is 
made." If this be true, it is impossible to human 
reason to assign any sufficient cause, why commu- 
nion in both species should ever have been com- 
manded or practiced. The practice of your church 
of communicating the laity in one kind only, if not 
the direct and natural consequence of the doctrine 
in question, is certainly in perfect keeping with it, 
as the most common mind cannot fail to perceive. 
For if Christ entire is received under every part of 
each species, he cannot certainly be more perfectly 
received under both. 

But this usage is opposed to the express and 
plain command of our Saviour, and to the practice 
of the ancient church. 

On this latter point I offer you a few testimonies. 

Ignatius exhorts the Philadelphians "to use one 

faith, one preaching, and one Eucharist ; for the 

flesh of the Lord is one, and his blood which has 

been shed for us is one ; and one bread is broken to 

21* 



246 ON THE EUCHARIST. 

all and one cup distributed to all." A In this pas- 
sage there is no such confusion of the body and 
blood of Christ under a single kind, as is taught by 
the doctors of Trent. The bread and the cup are 
mentioned separately as being the separate and dis- 
tinct representatives of Christ's flesh and blood. 
And I know not of a single passage to be found in 
all the writings of antiquity, in which the sacra- 
mental flesh and blood of Christ are said to exist 
under a single species. 

In his Apology for the Christians to the Em- 
peror, Justin the Martyr says: "When the presi- 
dent has given thanks, and all the people resjjonded, 
those called by us deacons give to each of those 
present to partake of the bread, and wine and 
water of the Eucharist ; and to those not present 
they carry them." And a little after he repeats 
substantially the same thing, and assures us that 
"the impartation and reception of those things 
blessed, is made to each one; and to those not 
present they are sent by the deacons." * 

Iren^ius says that our flesh is fed by the body 
and blood of Christ, so that it is increased by them 
and consists of them. He argues the resurrection 
of our bodies to immortality, from their having 
been made the recipients of the sacrament of 
Christ's quickening body and blood. 2 But no one 
ever supposed, that Iren^us intended to argue for 
the resurrection of the priests only. If he did not 
thus argue, he must certainly have considered the 
body and blood to belong to the laity equally with 
the clergy. 

When writing upon the "resurrection of the 
flesh," Tertullian makes use of the same language : 

A Ignat. Epist. ad Philadelph. 
i Apol. i. (See above, p. 123.) 

lib. v, c. 2 ; et lib. iv, c. 34. 



HALF-COMMUNION. 247 

"Our flesh is fed witli the body and blood of 
Christ." 1 And in his book to his wife he speaks 
twice of her taking the cup, which confessedly 
refers to the Eucharist. 2 

Cyprian says, "We do not leave unarmed and 
naked those that we urge and exhort to the contest 
[of martyrdom] but we fortify them with the pro- 
tection of Christ's body and blood For in what 

manner shall we teach or incite them to pour out 
their own blood in the confession of his name, if 
we deny the blood of Christ to those about to en- 
gage in the contest? Or how shall we make them 
fit for the cup of martyrdom, if we do not first ad- 
mit them to drink, in the church, the cup of the 
Lord by right of communication?" 3 And in the 
Epistle to the people of Thibaris, which passes 
under his name, the author remarks: "Now the 
contest harder and fiercer threatens, for which the 
soldiers of Christ ought to prepare themselves by 
an incorrupt faith and strong valor; considering 
that for this reason they daily drink the cup of 
Christ's blood, that they may be able to pour out 
their blood for Christ. For this is to will to be 
found with Christ, to imitate what Christ taught 
and did." 

1 Caro corpore et sanguina Christi vescitur. Tertul. de 
Resurrec. Carriis, lib. c. 7, p. 330. 

2 Idem, ad Uxorem. 

3 Quos excitamus et hortamur ad proelium, non inermes et 
nudos relinquamus, sed protectione sanguinis et corporis 

Christi muniamus Num quomodo docemus aut provoca- 

mus eos in confessione noniinis sanguinem suum fundere, si 
eis militaturis Christi sanguinem denegamus? Aut quo- 
modo ad martyri poculum idoneos facimus, si non eos prius 
ad bibendum in Ecclesia poculum Domini jure communica- 
tionis admittimus? Cyprian, Ep. liv, ad Cornell um. 

4 Considerantes idcirco se quotidie calicem sanguinis 
Christi bibere, ut possint et ipsi propter Christum sanguinem 
fundere, etc. Idem, Ep. lvi, de Exhort. Martyr, ad Thibari- 
tanos. 



248 ON THE EUCHARIST. 

Chrysostom says: "There are some things wherein 
there is no difference between the priest and the 
people ; as, when they are to partake of the tre- 
mendous mysteries ; for we are all alike admitted 
to them. Not as in the times of the Old dispensa- 
tion, when the priests ate one thing and the people 
another, and it was not lawful for the people to 
partake of what the priest did. It is not so now, 
but there is one body and one cup proposed to all." B 

Augustine tells the newly baptized, " That when 
they should prove themselves, then they should eat 
ol the Lord's table and drink of the cup." * And 
Jerome his contemporary says, " The priests serve 
the Eucharist and divide the Lord's blood to his 
people." 2 

2. These testimonies are sufficient to prove the 
antiquity of a usage which is so clearly delivered, 
that you are not disposed to call it in question. 
Nevertheless, to acquit your church of the guilt of 
heresy and the crime of perverting any part of the 
Christian doctrine^ you are pleased to dignify this 
ancient practice — which is no other than the obe- 
dient performance of the divine, and almost dying 
command of our Lord and Saviour, " drink ye 
all of it," — with a place among those "forms or 
methods" which "are mere matters of discipline 
that may be changed or altered, as often as the 
wisdom of the church thinks necessary." 

Whatever Jesus Christ has taught us to believe 
and practice, I have always regarded as doctrine ; 
but the manner in which we perform his sacred in- 
junctions, I suppose may be regarded as belonging to 

B Chrysost, Horn, xviii, in II Cor. § 3. Opera Paris, 1838, 
torn x, p. 670. 

1 Ut ciim seipsos probaverint, tunc de rnensa Domini man- 
ducent, et de calice bibant. Aug. de Fide et Operibus. 

2 Sacerdotes Eucliaristise Serviunt, et sanguinem Domini 
populis ejus dividunt. Hieron. in Sophon. cap. 2. 



HALF -COMMUNION. 249 

what is commonly termed discipline. And your 
learned Mr. Hughes repeatedly says, in his contro- 
versy with Mr. Breckenridge, that Jesus Christ 
taught no opinions, but all his instructions were doc- 
trines. How then comes it to pass, that our Lord's 
plain and positive injunction to drink of the cup, is 
only a mere matter of discipline that must bow to the 
will or caprice of men's changing opinions ? Will 
you, when you wish to insult the better informed 
judgmentof your neighbors, tell them that their faith 
is but a system of opinions, and that Jesus Christ 
delivered no opinions, but all doctrines ; and when 
you wish to excuse your abrogation of Christ's plain 
command, tell us that his divine injunction is no 
better than a mere "mode or method," which may 
be changed as circumstances dictate ? Is this worthy 
men of intelligence ? If there be any thing in the 
Gospel of God our Saviour that may be called a 
doctrine, it is that command of his to his Church, 
to drink of that cup which he instituted in memory 
of his bloody passion upon the cross. And if it be 
possible to fallen and rebellious creatures to dis- 
obey such command, and sacrilegiously pervert 
any divine institution, then has the church of Rome 
done thus in regard to the use of the cup in the 
Eucharist. As proof of this, I will offer you the 
testimony of several of the ancients, including some 
of those by you denominated Popes of the church. 
St. Cyprian, writing to Cracilius in condemnation 
of the practice of the Aquarians who used no wine, 
but water only, in the Eucharist, says: " Where- 
fore^ if Christ alone is to be heard, we ought not 
to heed what another before us may have supposed 
should be done, but what Christ who is before all, 
first did ; for it is not meet to follow the custom of 

man, but the truth of God If it is not lawful 

to break the least of the Lord's commandments, how 
much more is it not right to infringe commands so 



250 ON THE EUCHAKIST. 

great, so grand, and so much pertaining to the very- 
sacrament of the Lord's passion, and our redemp- 
tion ; or by human tradition to change it into some- 
thing different from that which has been divinely 
instituted." 1 Upon this passage we may observe, 
that our author regards the full and proper exhibi- 
tion of the cup as essential to the full and proper 
celebration of this sacrament ; that the command 
to do this occupies a high position amongst the 
divine precepts of our Saviour, and, consequently, 
cannot be classed with those disciplinary regula- 
tions, which may be changed according to circum- 
stances ; and that the example and command of 
Christ in this matter, are superior to any human 
authority ; so that, notwithstanding the opinions 
and traditions of men, God's truth as contained in 
his word, is constantly to be followed. If then it 
be a culpable infringement of Christ's precept and 
example, to substitute water for wine, in the exhibi- 
tion of the cup, much more is it a gross violation of 
his divine command, to deny the people the cup 
altogether. Especially does this appear when we 
consider, that the universal participation of the cup 
is more expressly enjoined, than the use of the 
other species. 

"It is an indignity to the Lord," says Ambrose, 
" to celebrate the mystery otherwise than it was 
delivered by him. For he cannot be devout who 



1 Qnare si solus Christus audiendus est, non debemns atten- 
dere, quid alius ante nos faciendum putaverit, sed quid, qui 
ante omnes est, Christus, prior fecerit. Neque enim hominis 

consuetudinem sequi oportet, sed Dei veritatem Quod 

si nee minima de mandatis dominicis licet solvere; quanto 
magis tam magna, tarn grandia, tarn ad ipsum dominicse pas- 
sionis et nostrae redemptionis sacramentum pertinentia, fas 
non est infringere, aut in aliud, quam quod divinitus institu- 
tum sit, liumana traditione mutare ? Cyprian, Ep. lxiii, ad 
Csecilium de Sacram. Domini calicis. 



HALF-COMMUNION. 251 

presumes to give it in any other way than it was 
given by its author.'' 

Pope Julius, elected to the See of Borne, A. D. 
337, says: " We have heard of some who, kept back 
by a schismatic disposition, have consecrated milk 
instead of wine in the divine sacrifices, contrary to 
the divine laws and apostolic institutions; and 
others also, who extend to the people the Eucharist 
dipped instead of the full communion How con- 
trary this is to the Evangelic and Apostolic doc- 
trine, and adverse to the custom of the Church, it 
is not difficult to prove from the very fountain of 
truth, from which proceeded these mysteries of the 
sacraments which have been ordained." 1 

Pope Leo the Great, elected A. D. 440, speaks of 
those who "with unworthy mouth take the body of 
Christ but altogether refuse to drink the blood of 
our redemption ; . . . . Whose sacrilegious dissem- 
bling should be laid bold of, and themselves noted 
and prohibited from the company of the saints, 
should be expelled by sacerdotal authority." 2 

Pope G-elasius, elected A. D. 492, also says: 
" We find that some, a portion of the sacred body 

c Ambros. in I Cor. xi. 

1 Audivimus quosdam scismatica arabitione detentos, con- 
tra Divinos ordines, et Apostolicas Institutiones, lac pro vino 
in divinis sacrinciis dedicare: alios quoque intinctam eucha- 
ristiam populis pro complemento communionis porrigere . . . 
Quod quam sit Evangelicae et Apostolicae doctrine contra- 
rium, et consuetudini ecclesiastics adversum, non difficile ab 
ipso fonte veritatis probabitur, a quo ordinata ipsa sacramen- 
torum mysteria proeesserunt. Julii Epist. ad Episc. iEgypt. 
apud Gratian. de Consecr., dist. 2, c. 7. Cited by Bingham, 
bk. xv, ch. v, sec. 1. 

2 Ore indigno corpus Christi accipiunt, sanguinem autem 

redemptionis nostrse haurire omnino declinant Quorum 

deprehansa fuerit sacrilega simulatio, notati et proliibiti a 
sanctorum societate sacerdotali auctoritate pellantur. Leo, 
Serin, iv, de Quadragesima. Cited by Bingham. 



252 ON THE EUCHARIST. 

being received only, abstain from the cnp of the 
holy blood; . who doubtless, (because they are 
taught to be bound by what superstition I know 
not,) should either receive the sacraments entire or 
be kept wholly from them; because the division op 

ONE AND THE SAME MYSTERY CANNOT TAKE PLACE WITH- 
OUT GREAT SACRILEGE. " l 

So unqualifiedly do these ancient writers refute 
and condemn this modern and heretical notion of 
yours, which makes the communion of the cup a 
matter of mere discipline, and so little important 
that it may be indulged or forbidden by the church 
whenever she thinks proper. I dare say these an- 
cient Popes would expel you all "by sacerdotal 
authority,"' were they in a position so to do, unless 
you should speedily repent, and return to the an- 
cient doctrine and practice of the Church. 

3. But the practice of communicating in both 
kinds, was not limited to the first five centuries 
after Christ. It has continued in the purer churches 
of the East until the present, and did not, in the 
Latin Church, go into general disuse during the 
period of more than a thousand years after Christ. 

Paschasius, A. D. 831, who is considered to be the 
father of transubstantiation, teaches the practice 
and necessity of receiving both species in the fol- 
lowing language: "But the priest, because he 
seems to act between God and the people instead 
of Christ, offers their vows and gifts to God by the 
hands of the angel, and renders back by the body 
and blood what is obtained, and distributes to every 

1 Comperimus quod quidam sumpta tantummodo corporis 
sacri portione, & calice sacri cruoris abstineant. Qui procul- 
dubio (quia nescio qua superstitione docentur abstringi,) aut 
integra sacramenta pereipiant, aut integris arceantur : quia 
divisio unius ejusdemque mysterii sine grandi sacrilegio non 
potest provenire. Gelas. apud Gratian de 
c. 12. Cited by Bingham. 



HALF -COMMUNION. 253 

one." 1 Again he says: "And therefore, it is he 
alone that breaks this bread, and, by the hands of 
his ministers, distributes to the faithful, saying, 
Take and drink ye all of this, as well ministers as 
the rest of the faithful, this i*s the cap of my blood 
of the New and eternal Testament." 2 And, "It is 
manifest and clear to all, that in this mortal life 
we cannot live without food and drink ; so there- 
fore we cannot come to life eternal, unless we are 
nourished to immortality by both these." 3 

Algerus, a zealous defender of the doctrine of 
Paschasius, fully agrees with him, some three cen- 
turies afterward, in the necessity of communicating 
in both kinds. " Because," says he " we so live by 
food and drink that we can be deprived of neither 
one nor the other, he would [therefore] that both 
should be in his sacrament." 4 Again, he argues 
that "Christ has redeemed our lost body and soul 
oy his body and soul, and his body and blood are 
taken by the faithful, that by the body and soul of 
Christ our whole man may be quickened." 5 He 



1 Caeterum sacerdos quia vices Christi visibili specie inter 
Deum et populum agere videtur, infert per manus Angeli 
vota populiad Deum et refert: Vota quidem offert et munera, 
refert autem impetrata per corpus et sanguinem, et distribuit 
singulis. Paschas. Ratbert. de Corp. et Sang. Dom., cap. xii. 

2 Et ideo hie solus est qui frangit hunc panem, et per manus 
ministrorum distribuit cred entibus, dicens, Accipite et bibite 
ex hoc omnes, tarn ministri quam et reliqui credentes, hie est 
calix sanguinis mei novi et seterni testamenti. Idem, cap. xv. 

3 Constat igitur et liquet omnibus, quod in hac mortali vita 
sine cibo et potu non vivitur, sic itaque ad illam seternam 
non pervenitur, nisi duobus istis ad immortalitatem nutriatur. 
Idem, cap. xix. 

4 Quia potu et cibo ita vivimus ut alterutro carere neque- 
amus, utrumque in sacramento suo esse voluit. Algerus de 
Sacram., lib. ii, cap. v. 

5 Nos qui corpore et anima perieramus, corpus per corpus, 
etanimam per animam Chriatus redimens, .... simul corpus 

22 



254 ON THE EUCHARIST. 

also quotes Augustine as teaching that " neither the 
flesh without the blood nor the blood without the 
flesh is rightly communicated ; " and that passage 
of Pope G-ELASius, which has just been cited. 

G-ratian, A. D. 1170, says: If, whenever Christ's 
blood is poured out, it is poured out for the remis- 
sion of sins, I ought always to receive it that my 
sins may always be forgiven me." 1 

Aquinas, A. D. 1260, not so well instructed in 
transubstantiation as his successors, teaches that 
" Christ's body is not sacramentally under the spe- 
cies of wine, nor his blood sacramentally under the 
species of bread; therefore, that Christ may be 
sacramentally taken, it is necessary that he be re- 
ceived under both species." 

Again he says : " According to the ancient cus- 
tom of the church, all men as they communicated 
in the body so they communicated in the blood; 
which also to this day is kept in some churches." 2 
About the same time, A. D. 1265 or 1266, we are 
told that one Decanus, with some associate monks, 
gave the body and blood of Christ to the army of 
Charles, King of Sicily, as they were about to go to 
battle against Manfred. 3 

4. Communion in both kinds may be further 
proved from several practices formerly observed by 
Christians. 

et sanguis sumitur, a fidelibus . . . . ut sumpto corpore et 
aninia Christi totus homo vivificetur. Idem, cap. viii. Vide 
et Hugo de S. Victore, torn, v, cap. 6. 

l Si quotiescunque effunditur sanguis Christi in remis- 
sionem peccatorum effunditur, debeo ilium semper sumere, 
ut semper peccata mini dimittentur. Gratian. de Consecrat. 
dist. 2. 

D Aquinat, part iii, q. 76, art. 2. 

2 Idem, Com. in Joan, vi, sec. 7. 

3 Cum exercitu sesset in procinctu, Decanus Meldensem, 
associatis sibi Monachis, corpus et sanguinem Christi regiis 



HALF-COMMUNION. 255 

The consecrated elements were held in great 
veneration by the ancients; and they took great 
care that no disrespect should befall them. 

In the time of Julius some were accustomed to 
clip the bread in the wine and give it. Both Pope 
and the Council of Braga, some centuries after, for- 
bade this practice in nearly the same words. Sub- 
sequently the Council of Clermont, taking notice of 
this same practice, decreed a that no one should 
communicate from the altar unless he took the body 
separately, and in like manner the blood, except 
through necessity and with care." 1 This intinc- 
tion was, however, generally forbidden except in 
some extraordinary cases. Thus the Council of 
Tours orders the sacrament to be administered to 
the sick dipped, "that the presbyter may in truth 
say to the sick man, the body and blood of the 
Lord be profitable to thee." 2 

This practice is still observed by the Greek, Sy- 
rian and Armenian churches of the East, some of 
them giving the elements mixed in a spoon, others 
dipping the bread into the wine. 3 

About the time of Beeengarius, it was the prac- 
tice to suck the wine from the cup through quills 
to prevent it from being spilt. This appears in the 
order of celebrating Mass by the Pope, taken from 
several books of the Ordo Homanus, in the Liturgies 
of Cassander, in which the arch-deacon is said "to 
receive a pugillaris from the regionary sub-deacon, 

militibus dedisse. Apud du Chesne, Hist. Franc, torn, v, p. 840, 
cit. Dalleo de Cult. Lat. lib. v, cap. 12. 

1 Ne quis communicet de altari, nisi corpus separatim et 
sanguinem similiter sumit, nisi per necessitatem et per caute- 
lam. Apud Baron. Concil. Claramont, Can. 28. 

2 Qua? sacra oblatio intincta esse debet in sanguine Christi 
ut veraciter presbyter possit dicere infirmo, Corpus et sanguis 
Domini proficiat tibi. Apud Burcliard, lib. v, cap. 9. 

3 Southgate's Visit to the Syrian Church, 1841, p. 210. 



256 ON THE EUCHARIST. 

with which he confirms the people." 1 And in his 
note on the word pugillaris, Cassander says, they 
were pipes or canes with which the blood was sucked 
from the cup of the Lord." 2 Again, "When the 
Pontiff has taken the body of Christ, the cardinal 
bishop reaches to him a pipe, which the Pope puts 
into the cup which is in the hands of the deacon, 
and sucks a part of the blood." E 

We may smile at this little superstition of the 
dark ages ; nevertheless, it shows that the people 
were accustomed to receive, in some way, that part 
of the Eucharist of which the laity of Rome now 
quietly allow themselves to be deprived. 

As further proof of communion in both kinds we 
might, if necessary, produce the ancient practice of 
some errorists, as noticed by Cyprian and Julius, 
who, by using milk instead of wine, plainly con- 
fessed the importance of two species to the perfec- 
tion of this sacrament. 

Indeed, I know of no others, except the present 
Papal church and the ancient Manicheans, that 
ever communicated in one species only; so that 
Rome can, in this respect, boast of standing side by 
side with those olden and notorious heretics. 

5. Having sufficiently proved from antiquity the 
practice and necessity of communicating in both 
species, we may briefly notice the introduction of 
the contrary usage in the Latin communion, which, 
Elliott says was done by the Council of Constance, 
"But properly it was Innocent III, who made it 
a law ; for the Council of Constanee did not even 
act upon the decrees drawn up by the Pope ; and 

1 Archidiaconus accepto a subdiacono regionario pugillari, 
cum quo confirmat populum. Cassand. Liturg in Ordine 
Celebrat. Missa? per Roman. Pontificem. 

Fistulas seu cannse, quibus sanguis e Dominico calice 
exugebatur. Ibid. 

E Idem, Sacrar. Cerimon. 1. 2. 



HALF-COMMUNION. 257 

this candid Roman Catholics acknowledge, though 
some of them may deny it, and others are ignorant 
of the fact. Afterward the Council of Trent de- 
creed in favor of halt-communion. The Pope's 
faction was so powerful at that Council, that, con- 
trary to the institution of our Lord, they carried 
the measure which the Council of Constance had 
introduced." 1 The decree of the Council of Con- 
stance hy which communion in one kind was 
established, reads as follows: 

"Whereas, in several parts of the world, some 
have rashly presumed to assert that all Christians 
ought to receive the holy sacrament of the Eucha- 
rist under both species of bread and wine, and that 
also after supper, or not fasting, contrary to the 
laudable custom of the church, justly approved of, 
which they damnably endeavor to reprobate as 
sacrilegious; hence it is that this holy general 
Council of Constance, assembled by the Holy Ghost 
to provide for the salvation of the faithful against 
this error, declares, decrees and defines, that al- 
though Christ did after supper institute this holy 
sacrament, and administer it to his disciples in both 
kinds, of bread and wine, yet, notwithstanding this, 
the laudable authority of the sacred canons, and the 
approved custom of the church, hath fixed and doth 
fix that this sacrament ought not to be made after 
supper, nor received by the faithful not fasting. 
And as this custom has been reasonably introduced 
in order to avoid certain dangers and scandals, see- 
ing that, although in the primitive church this sa- 
crament was received by the faithful under both 
species, it was afterward received by the celebrants 
under each species, and by the laity under the 
species of bread only ; and since it is most certainly 
to be believed, and in no wise to be doubted, that 

1 Elliott on Romanism, vol. 1, p. 294. 

22* 



258 ON THE EUCHARIST. 

the entire body and blood of Christ are truly con- 
tained as well under the species of bread as under 
the species of wine, [this custom] therefore being 
approved, is now to be held for a law. Also, in re- 
gard to this matter, this holy synod decrees and 
declares to the reverend fathers in Christ, patri- 
archs and lords, that they effectually punish the 
transgressors of this decree who exhort the people 
to communicate under both species of bread and 
wine/' F 

The Council of Trent declares that, "Although 
Christ the Lord did, at the last supper, institute 
this venerable sacrament and deliver it to the Apos- 
tles in the species of bread and wine, nevertheless 
it does notfollowfrom this institution and delivery, 
that all the faithful of Christ are bound by the 
statute of the Lord to receive both species." 1 

" Moreover the Council declares that, although 
our Redeemer, as before said, did at that last suj)- 
per, institute and deliver to the Apostles this sacra- 
ment in two species, it must, nevertheless, be con- 
fessed that Christ, whole and entire, and a true 
sacrament, is taken under either species." 2 

The Council also enacted the following at its 21st 
session: 

Can. 1. "If any one shall say that all and every 
one of the faithful of Christ ought by divine pre- 

F Concil. Constant. Sess. xiii, A. D. 1414. 

1 Etsi Christus Dominus in ultima ccena venerabile hoc sa- 
cramentum in panis et vini speciebus instituit, et Apostolis 
tradidit; non tamen ilia institntio et traditio eo tendunt, ut 
omnes Christi fideles statuto Domini ad utraraque speciem 
accipiendam astringantur. Cone. Trident. Sess. xxii, c. 1, 
A. D. 1562. 

! 2 Insuper declarat, quamvis Redemptor noster, ut antea dic- 
tum est, in suprema ilia coena hoc sacramentum in duabus 
speciebus instituerit, et Apostolis tradiderat; tamen fatendum 
esse, etiam sub altera tantum specie totum atque integrum 
Christum, verumque sacramentum sumi. Idem, cap. 3. 



HALF-COMMUNION. 259 

cept, or, as necessary to salvation, to take both, 
species of the most holy sacrament of the Eucharist ; 
let him be anathema." 

Can. 2. "If any one shall say that the Holy 
Catholic Church had not just and reasonable causes 
to communicate the laity and even the non-celebrat- 
ing clergy under the species of bread only, or that 
she has erred therein; let him be anathema." 

Can. 3. "If any man shall deny that Christ, the 
fountain and author of all graces, is taken whole 
and entire under the one species of bread, because, 
as some falsely assert, he is not taken according to 
Christ's institution under each species ; let him be 
be anathema." 1 

Plainly, therefore, do these Councils confess, 1. 
that Christ instituted this sacrament and delivered 
it to the primitive church in both kinds ; 2. that 
the Church of Kome has, for certain reasons, changed 
what Christ originally ordained and commanded to 
be done in memory of him, so that now she "decrees 
and declares effectual punishment" to be inflicted 
upon the transgressors of her law, and pronounces 
her dreadful curse upon all who dare oppose her 
assumptions and appeal to the authority of Jesus 
Christ, the divine author of the Christian religion. 
This assumption of more than divine exaltation is 

1 Can. 1. Si quis dixerit, ex Dei prsecepto, vel necessitate 
salutis, omnes et singulos Christi fideles utramque speciem 
sanctissimi Eucharistise sacramentis sumeredebere; anathema 
sit. 

Can. 2. Si quis dixerit, sanctam Ecclesiam Catholicam non 
justis causis et rationibus adductam fuisse, ut laicos, atque 
etiam clericos, non conficientes, sub panis tantummodo specie 
communicaret, aut in eo errasse , anathema sit. 

Can. 3. Si quis negaverit, totum, et integrum Christum 
omnium gratiarum fontem et auctorem sub una panis specie 
sumi, quia ut quidam falso aeserunt, non secundum ipsius 
Christi institutionem sub utraque specie sumatur; anathema 
sit. Concil. Trident. Sess. xxi. 



260 ON THE EUCHARIST. 

a prominent mark of the "man" whose character 
the inspired penman most graphically describes in 
II Thess. ii. Bead it. 

From the evidence which has now been produced, 
it is certain that all Christian churches communi- 
cated in both species for more than a thousand 
years after Christ. It was about the beginning of 
the twelfth century that communion in one kind 
began to be practiced in some of the Latin churches, 
as we gather from the passage cited from St. 
Thomas Aquinas, and from the testimony of Bona, 
a Komish author of the seventeenth age,, who says: 
"It is certain that all, everywhere, both the clergy 
and laity, men and women, anciently took the sacred 
mysteries under each species when they were pre- 
sent at their solemn celebration ; and they made 
their offerings and participated of those things 
which were offered. But without a sacrifice, and 
without the church, communion was always and 
everywhere in use under one species. To the first 
part of this assertion all, as well Catholics as sec- 
taries, agree ; nor can he, who is imbued with the 
least knowledge of ecclesiastical affairs, deny it. 
For always and everywhere from the beginning of 
the church even to the twelfth age the faithful 
communicated under the species of bread and wine. 
In the beginning of this age the use of the cup 
began, by little and little, to pass out of use, the 
bishops for the most part forbidding it to the people 
on account of the danger of irreverence and of effu- 
sion." 1 



1 Certum est omnes passim clericos et laicos, viros et muli- 
eres sub utraque specie sacra mysteria antiquitus sumpsisse, 
cum solemni eorum celebrationi aderant, et offerebant et de 
oblatis participabant. Extra sacrificium vero, et extra Eccle- 
siam semper et ubique commvmio sub una specie in usu fuit. 
Primae parti assertionis consentiunt omnes, tam Catholici, 
quam sectarii ; nee earn negare potest, qui vel levissima rerum 



HALF-COMMUNION. 261 

6. The advocates of the innovation do, however, 
offer their arguments and reasons for communi- 
cating the people under one species only. 

"They say," says Elliott, "that the Apostles 
were commanded to take of the cup as well as the 
bread because they were clergymen ; To this we 
answer, that it was to the Apostles only he gave 
the bread also; therefore the laity should have 
neither bread nor cup_, if the objection be true. 
Besides, the Apostles though not officiating, received 
the cup; hence the non-officiating clergy are to 
have the cup also. Thus their doctrine has no 
support from the foregoing argument of theirs. 
But they have a strange quibble which they intro- 
duce in this place. They grant, indeed, that the 
Apostles were laymen, and represented the whole 
body of Christians, when they received the bread; 
bat when our Saviour said these words, Hoefacite — 
Do tliis, by these words he ordained them priests; 
and these words were spoken before lie gave them 
the cup. So that when he came to dispense the 
other part of the sacrament to them, that is, the 
the wine, they then did not receive as laymen, and 
the representatives of the people., but as clergymen. 
It appears the Council of Trent had reference to 
this quibbling sophism when they made the follow- 
ing canon: 'If any one shall say, that by these 
words, Do this in remembrance of me, Christ did not 
institute his Apostles priests, or did not ordain, 
that they and other priests should offer his body 
and blood; let him be accursed!'. 1 

Ecclesiasticarnm notitia imbutus sit. Semper enim et ubique 
ab Ecclesise primordiis usque ad ssec.ulum duodecimnm sub 
specie panis et vini communicarunt fideles; ccepit paulatim 
ejus sseculi initio usus calicis obsolescere, plerisque Episcopis 
earn populo interdicentibus ob periculum irreverentiee et effu- 
sionis. Bona Rer. Liturg, lib. ii, cap. 18, No. 1, 

1 Si quis dixerit, illis verbis, Hoc facite in meam commemo- 
rationern, Christum nou instituisse apostolos sacerdotes; aut 



262 ON THE EUCHAKIST. 

'But/ it is said, 'our Saviour himself, after his 
resurrection, administered the sacrament in one 
kind. For St. Luke says, that sitting down with 
his two disciples at Emmaus, he took bread and 
blessed it, and brake, and gave to them." But this 
was not administering the sacrament at all. It 
was a thanksgiving to God, as was usual at every 
meal, and as he did when he fed the multitudes 
with the loaves and fishes, according to the maner 
of the Jews, both at that time and since. 

They also argue, that in the Acts of the Apostles 
it is said 'that the disciples met together to break 
bread on the first day of the week.' (Acts ii: 42.) 
'This/ say they, 'refers to the Eucharist, and the 
cup is not once mentioned as given/ But it is not 
certain that this refers at all to the sacrament. 
And supposing it does ; as in Scripture language 
common feasts are expressed by the single phrase 
of eating bread, which certainly does not prove that 
the guests drank nothing ; so neither does it prove, 
by a religious feast being expressed in the same 
manner, that the guests drank nothing. Besides, 
if there is no mention of the laity receiving the 
cup, there is none of the priests receiving it. Yet 
they think this absolutely necessary ; and if one 
may be taken for granted without being particu- 
larly mentioned, so may the other also. Add to 
all this, that where St. Paul speaks in form of this 
sacrament, he mentions the cup as a necessary part 
thereof. 

They also plead, 'that the laity, by receiving the 
body of Christ, receive his blood also ; for the blood 
is contained in the body.' But they ought to con- 
sider that the wine was intended to be a memorial 
of the blood shed out of the body; and therefore 

non orclinasse, nt ipsi, aliiqne sacerdotes offerrent corpus et 
sangtiinem suum ; anathema sit. De Sacrificio Missse, can. 2. 



HALF-COMMUNION. 263 

they who do not receive the cup, do not make this 
memorial which Christ commanded. Besides, why 
did Christ institute the cup? If his disciples, in 
receiving the bread, had received both the body 
and blood, what need was there afterward in 
giving them the cup, and calling it the New 
Testament in his blood? Again, if partaking of the 
bread be the communion both of the body and 
blood of Christ, why did Paul make such a distinc- 
tion between the bread and the cup, calling one the 
communion of the body of Christ, and the other the 
communion of his blood? Lastly, if both the body 
and blood are received in the bread, what does the 
priest who administers receive when he takes the 
cup? 

They also urge, 'If any man eat of this bread 
he shall live forever,' (John vi: 51.) But they 
must first show that this verse, and indeed the con- 
text at large, relates to the Lord's Supper. And 
this they cannot do according to the principles of 
their church, which require that they ' receive and 
iuterpret Scripture not otherwise than according to 
the unanimous consent of the Fathers.' Now the 
Council of Trent (Sess. 21, c. 1,) acknowledge that 
the Fathers and Doctors gave various interpretations 
(varias interpretationes) of this portion of the sixth 
of John. We also insist that bishops of Rome, 
cardinals, bishops, and other doctors of their church, 
upward of thirty in number, deny that their doc- 
trine, with respect to the Eucharist, is to be collected 
from this chapter. 

From the phrase, as often as ye drink it, they 
argue that the cup in the Eucharist may sometimes 
be omitted. But it should be remembered that the 
same porase, as often as, is applied to the bread as 
well as to the cup. 

From the passage, c Whosoever shall eat this 
bread and drink this cup unworthily,' (I Cor. xi: 



264 ON THE EUCHARIST. 

27,) Roman Catholics complain that the Protes- 
tants have corrupted the text, as both the Greek 
and Vulgate, instead of »*i, and et, and, have y, and 
vel, or: 'Whosoever shall eat this bread or drink 
this cup unworthily.' To this we reply, 1. This 
criticism gives no countenance to communion in 
one kind, because their own Greek, Latin, and 
English Testaments (I Cor. xi : 26, 28, 29; x : 16, 
17,) no less than five tims use *«. : , and, in joining 
the bread and cup together, to be both received in 
remembrance of Christ. Therefore, to say the cup 
is not necessary, is to make the Apostle contradict 
himself, as well as our Lord's institution. 2. That 
kx , and, is the true reading, and not r, or, both 
MSS. and versions sufficiently prove; and that et, 
not vel, is the proper reading of the Vulgate, origi- 
nal editions formed by Roman Catholics themselves 
prove. See these points established by Dr. A. 
Clarke on I Cor. xi : 27, at the end of the chapter. 
3. Besides, whatever may be the true reading, the 
doctrine of half-communion gains nothing ; because 
the Apostle plainly teaches that either to eat or 
drink unworthily was wrong. And that the Co- 
rinthians did drink of the cup, and that some of 
them did drink uniuorfhily, or in an irreverent man- 
ner, is plainly declared in the context." 1 

7. Various reasons for this change are given, the 
principal of which are contained in the following 
passages from the Roman Catechism : " The church, 
no doubt, was influenced by numerous and cogent 
reasons, not only to approve, but confirm by solemn 
decree, the general practice of communicating un- 
der one species. In the first place, the greater 
caution was necessary to avoid accident or indig- 
nnty, which must become almost inevitable if the 
chalice were administered in a crowded assemblage. 

1 Elliott, vol. i, pp. 291, 292. 



HALF-COMMUNION. 265 

In the next place, the holy Eucharist should he at 
all times in readiness for the sick ; and if the spe- 
cies of wine remained long unconsumed, it were to 
be apprehended that it might become vapid. Be- 
sides, there are many who cannot bear the taste or 
smell of wine ; lest, therefore, what is intended for 
the nutriment of the soul should prove noxious to 
the health of the body, the church, in her wisdom, 
has sanctioned its administration under the species 
of bread alone. We may also observe, that in 
many places wine is extremely scarce, nor can it be 
brought from distant countries without incurring 
very heavy expense, and encountering very tedious 
and difficult journeys. Finally, a circumstance 
which principally influenced the church in estab- 
lishing this practice, means were to be devised to 
crush the heresy which denied that Christ, whole 

AND ENTIRE, 18 CONTAINED UNDER THE SPECIES OF BREAD 
WITHOUT THE BLOOD, AND THE BLOOD UNDER THE SPECIES 

of wine without the body. This object was attained 
by communion under the species of bread alone ; 
which places, as it were, sensibly before our eyes, 
the truth of the Catholic faith." 1 The capitalizing 
is ours of course. 

Such are the avowed reasons for half-communion. 
And the principal of these has its cause in the de- 
termination to "crush" forever the belief, — which 
is based upon our Saviour's words at the institution, 
and which prevailed for some twelve centuries 
after, even to the time of Aquinas, — that the 
species of bread answers only to the body of Christ, 
and the species of wine to his blood. Thus has 
Home corrupted the doctrine of our Saviour ; and 
then, to support and protect that corruption, she 
has perverted a plain and positive institution, and 
uttered her curse against those who dare renounce 

i Catechism, p. 228, cited by Elliott, vol. i, p. 295. 

23 



266 ON THE EUCHARIST. 

her novelties and embrace the pure gospel of 
Christ. 

8. There are, without doubt, some things per- 
taining to the Eucharist which are only circum- 
stantial, and others which must be regarded as 
essential. The former are such as the place of 
celebrating, the time, the posture of the partici- 
pants, and their number. For no one supposes it 
necessary to the being of the sacrament that it be 
made in an upper chamber, in the evening, reclin- 
ing according to the ancient practice at an ordinary 
meal, or that there be just twelve to partake at a 
time. These are but accidental circumstances, and 
in no manner affect the essence of the sacrament. 

But it is necessary to the right and proper per- 
formance of this commemorative sacrament, that its 
spirit and design be maintained. Now its design 
evidently is, to perpetuate in the minds of men the 
sacrificial death of Christ upon the cross, by means 
of those sensible symbols of bread and wine which 
he did himself select, as the typical representations 
of his broken body and shed blood. It seems, 
therefore, necessary to the right observance of this 
sacrament, that the suitable matter, or material be 
employed, that there be something present which 
will answer to what was used by the Lord at its 
institution, and shall fitly point out the thing to be 
signified. And as this something derives its fit- 
ness and significance from the will of the institutor 
alone, it is evident that the emblems chosen and 
employed by him, are the only things that can be 
fitly employed by us. And as no human authority 
can substitute anything essentially different from 
what Christ used, so also it can neither increase 
nor diminish their number. I conclude, hence, that 
they who do not receive the essential matter of this 
sacrament as instituted by our Lord, and designed 
by him to be observed and perpetuated, do not re- 



HALF-COMMUNION. 267 

ceive a full and proper sacrament. Such is the 
condition of the whole Romish laity. They do not 
receive the Eucharist properly and fully, and 
therefore, do they fail to show forth the bloody pas- 
sion of him who shed his blood for our redemption 
and salvation. 

The views of Dr. Adam Clarke are so forcible 
and pertinent to this point, that I will close this 
topic with an extract from his " Discourse on the 
Nature and Design of the Eucharist." He observes : 
" With respect to the bread, he had before simply 
said, Take, eat, this is my body ; but concerning the 
cup he says, Drink ye all of this ; for as this pointed 
out the very essence of the institution, namely, the 
blood of atonement, it was necessary that each 
should have a particular application of it ; therefore 
he says, Drink ye all of this. By this we are taught 
that the cup is essential to the sacrament of the 
Lord's Supper; so that they who deny the cup to 
the people, sin against God's institution ; and they 
who receive not the cup, are not partakers of the 
body and blood of Christ. If either could, without 
mortal prejudice, be omitted, it might be the bread ; 
but the cup, as pointing out the blood poured out, 
that is, the life, by which alone the great sacrificial 
act is performed, and remission of sins procured, is 
absolutely indispensable. On this ground it is 
demonstrable, that there is not a Popish priest 
under heaven who denies the cup to the people (and 
they all do this) that can be said to celebrate the 
Lord's Supper at all ; nor is there one of their vota- 
ries that ever received the holy sacrament ! All 
pretension to this is an absolute farce, so long as 
the cup, the emblem of the atoning blood, is denied. 
How strange it is that the very men who plead so 
much for the bare literal meaning of, This is my 
body, in the preceding verse, should deny all mean- 
ing to, Drink ye all of this cup, in this verse ! And 



268 ON THE EUCHARIST. 

though Christ has in the most positive manner en- 
joined it, they will not permit one of the laity to 
taste it ! what a thing is man ! a constant con- 
tradiction to reason and to himself. The conclu- 
sion, therefore, is unavoidable. The sacrament of 
the Lord's Supper is not celebrated in the Church 
of Kome. Should not this be made known to the 
miserable deluded Catholics over the face of the 
earth?" 

Yours, with a whole Christianity, 

E. 0. P. 



LETTEE XV. 

SACRIFICE OF THE MASS. 

Dear Brother: — Closely allied to transubstan- 
tiation, is the modern doctrine of the sacrifice of the 
Mass, which you tell me was taught by the Fathers. 
For this piece of inform ation, I presume you are 
indebted more to the doctors of your church, than 
to the ancient Fathers. For you seem to content 
yourself with the bare affirmation, without even an 
attempt at proof. In reply I might simply repeat 
the words of the learned Chamiere, that " neither 
the name nor the thing was known for the first 
three hundred years." But you might justly accuse 
me of a want of Christian courtesy and moral 
courage, were I to adopt, without proof, a proposi- 
tion, at once so general and opposed to the opinions 
and practice of your church. I shall, therefore, add 
some considerations to those already suggested in 
a former communication on the Sacrifice of the 
Mass. [pp. 101-105.] In order, however, to 
have the doctrine in question more fully before our 
mind, we may premise the canons of the Council of 
Trent on this subject, which, together with the 
citations made before, [p. 100, et seq.~\ will afford a 
view of the doctrine sufficiently comprehensive for 
our present purpose. 

Canon 1. If any one shall say, that a true and 
proper sacrifice is not offered to God in the Mass; 
or that what is offered is no other than giving us 
Christ to eat ; let him be anathema. 

Canon 2. If any one shall say that by these 
words, "Do this for a commemoration of me," 
23* 



270 ON THE EUCHARIST. 

Christ did not appoint his Apostles priests, or did 
not ordain that they and other priests should offer 
his body and blood ; let him be anathema. 

Canon 3. If any one shall say that the sacrifice 
of the Mass is one of praise and thanksgiving only, 
or a bare commemoration of the sacrifice made on 
the cross, but not propitiatory, or that it is profit- 
able to him only who takes it, and ought not to be 
offered for the living and the dead, for sins, punish- 
ments, satisfactions, and other necessities ; let him 
be anathema. 

Canon 4. If any one shall say, that the most holy 
sacrifice of Christ, made on the cross, is blasphemed 
by the sacrifice of the Mass ; or that the latter dero- 
gates from the glory of the former; let him be 
anathema. 

Canon 5. If any one shall say, that to celebrate 
Masses in honor of the saints, and in order to ob- 
tain their intercession with God, as the church 
intends, is an imposture ; let him be anathema. 

Canon 6. If any one shall say, that the canon of 
the mass contains errors, and ought therefore to be 
abolished ; let him be anathema. 

Canon 7. If any one shall say, that the cere- 
monies, vestments and external signs which the 
Catholic Church uses in the celebration of masses, 
are incitements to impiety more than helps to reli- 
gion ; let him be anathema. 

Canon 8. If any one shall say, that the masses 
in which the priest alone communicates sacrament- 
ally are unlawful and ought therefore to be abol- 
ished; let him be anathema. 

Canon 9. If any one shall say, that the rite of 
the Roman Church, by which a part of the canon 
and the words of consecration are uttered with a 
low voice is to be condemned; or that mass ought 
to be celebrated in the common tongue only ; or 
that water is not to be mixed with the wine in 



SACRIFICE OF THE MASS. 271 

offering the cup, because it is contrary to Christ's 
institution; let him be anathema. 1 

Such is the doctrine you are required to believe 
or submit to the manifold curse of a Holy Mother." 
Was it a doctrine of the early Church of Christ ? 

I do not deny that the ancient writers often speak 
of the Eucharist as a sacrifice; and indeed, we 
Protestants agree with the Fathers in denominat- 

1 Canon 1. Si quis dixerit, in missa non offerri Deo verura 
et proprium sacrificium, aut quod offerri non sit aliud, quam 
nobis Christum ad manducandum dari; anathema sit. 

Canon 2. Si quis dixerit, illis verbis, Hoc facite in meam 
commemorationem, Christum non instituisse apostolos sacer- 
dotes; aut non ordinasse, ut ipsi, aliique sacerdotes offerrent 
corpus et sanguinem suum; anathema sit. 

Canon 3. Si quis dixerit, missse sacrificium tantum esse 
landis et gratiarum actionis, aut nudam commemorationem 
sacrificii in cruce peracti non autem propitiatorium; vel soli 
prodesse sumenti ; neque pro vivis et defunctis, pro peccatis, 
poenis, satisfactionibus et aliis necessitatibus offerri debere; 
anathema sit. 

Canon 4. Si quis dixerit, blasphemiam irrogari sanctissi- 
mo Christi sacrificio in cruce peracto, per missse sacrificium, 
aut illi per hoc derogari; anathema sit. 

Canon 5. Si quis dixerit, imposturam esse, missas cele- 
brare in honorem sanctorum, et pro illorum intercessione 
apud Deum obtinenda, sicut ecclesia intendit; anathema sit. 

Canon 6. Si quis dixerit, canonem missa3 errores continere, 
ideoque abrogandum ; anathema sit. 

Canon 7. Si quis dixerit, ceremonias, vestes et externa 
signa, quibus in missarum celebratione Ecclesia Catholica 
utitur irritabula esse magis, quam officia pietatis; anathema 
sit. 

Canon 8. Si quis dixerit, missas in quibus solus sacerdos 
sacramentaliter communicat, illicitas esse ideoque abrogan- 
das; anathema sit. 

Canon 9. Si quis dixerit, Ecclesise Romanse ritum, quo 
summissa voce pars canonis et verba consecrationis proferun- 
tur, damnandum esse; aut lingua tantum vulgari missam 
celebrari debere: aut aquam non miscendam esse vino in 
calice offerendo, eo quod sit contra Christi institutionem; 
anathema sit. Concil Trident. Sess. xxii dc Sacrificio Missae. 



272 ON THE EUCHARIST. 

ing this sacrament a sacrifice ; for the term sacri- 
fice and oblation is used, as well in Scripture as in 
antiquity, in a general and improper or metaphori- 
cal sense. In this manner it is applied to the in- 
ternal emotions of the mind, such as penitence and 
sorrow for sin. " The sacrifices of God are a broken 
spirit, a broken and contrite heart, God thou 
wilt not despise." (Ps. li: 17.) Also the more ex- 
ternal expressions of worship are designated in a 
like manner. " We render unto the Lord the calves 
of our lips," (Hos. xiv: 2,) and "offer unto God thanks- 
giving;" (Ps. 1: 14,) which the Apostle more fully 
expresses when he exhorts to "offer the sacrifice of 
praise to God continually, that is, the fruit of our 
lips, giving thanks to his name." (Heb. xiii: 15.) 
Here the metaphor is kept up by a variety of phrase- 
ology ; and, in the next verse, it is applied to works 
of mercy and charity towards others. " But to do 
good and to communicate forget not, for with such 
sacrifices God is well pleased."' Elsewhere he calls 
the charity of the Philippians " an odor of a sweet 
smell, a sacrifice acceptable, well pleasing to God." 
(Phil, iv: 15.) He also calls their faith in Christ a 
sacrifice and service, Xeirovpyicc, (Ch. ii: 17,) which 
latter term your advocates of mass-worship would 
have to signify sacrifice as they use the word. But 
this term gives them no support, for the Apostle 
makes the preacher of the gospel a Xsirovpyov, and 
the conversion of the Gentiles an offering acceptable 
to God. (Rom. xv : 16.) And a little after he tells 
the converted Romans that they ought to minister 
\stTovpyn<r*t, — not sacrifice — their carnal things to 
the poor saints in Jerusalem, (v. 27.) And in the 
same epistle he denominates the civil rulers minis- 
ters, \ei7ovpyat, (xiii : 6,) not sacrificing priests 
surely. 

St. Peter not only makes works of piety, ' spiritual 
sacrifices acceptable to God through Jesus Christ/ 



SACRIFICE OF THE MASS. 273 

but lie also ascribes a holy priesthood to all Chris- 
tians to offer them. (I Pet. ii : 5.) So also St. 
John calls Christians "priests unto God." (Rev. 
i:6.) 

As the Holy Scriptures use this accommodated 
mode of expression, so also did the ancient writers 
of the church apply terms denoting sacrifice and 
offering to all parts of religious worship, and more 
especially to the Eucharist, which was considered 
one of the most solemn and impressive of all our 
devotions. So that it avails nothing, to produce a 
long list of places where the Eucharist is called a 
sacrifice and oblation, unless at the same time it be 
proved, that they use these terms in their full and 
proper sense. But that the Fathers do not apply 
these terms to this sacrament, in their full and 
proper signification, I deduce from the following 
considerations: 

I. When the primitive Christians presented 
themselves for communion, it was their practice to 
bring with them their offerings of bread and wine, 
and other appropriate things, a part of which was 
consecrated for the Eucharist; and the rest was 
used for a common feast of love and religious en- 
tertainment, or for the maintenance of the clergy 
and the poor, to whom they were afterward dis- 
tributed. In his first Epistle to the Corinthians 
(ch. xi,) the Apostle alludes to these primitive 
Love-feasts which, at an early age of the church, 
were allowed to go into desuetude on account of 
some abuses connected with them ? 

Clement of Rome makes mention of the Christian 
practice of performing these oblations at the times 
appointed ; speaks of them as offerings and service ; x 
and commends those that make them, by pronounc- 
ing them acceptable and blessed. A 

1 Clem. Rom. Ep. 1, ad Corinth, p. 85. Edit. Oxon. 
A Idem, p. 86. 



274 ON THE EUCHARIST. 

Ignatius also speaks of offering and bringing a 
sacrifice, which he will have no one do without the 
good pleasure of the bishop of his church, according to 
the good pleasure of God. 1 The third of those canons 
called Apostolical, forbids a bishop or presbyter to 
offer at the altar of God any thing contrary to the 
command of the Lord, such as honey, milk, or beer 
instead of wine, or birds, or any kind of animals or 
pulse; 2 which pretty strongly implies that the 
communicants were accustomed to bring together 
such articles of food as an offering, for the purposes 
already mentioned. And in order to guard against 
any innovation in the Eucharist, it seems to have 
been considered expedient to frame an express rule, 
and attach deposition from clerical standing as the 
penalty of transgression. Hence the importance of 
preserving the matter of the Eucharist unchanged. 

"We worship the Maker of the Universe," says 
Justin, "who needs not blood and libations and 
incense, speaking, as we have been taught, with 
the word of prayer and thanksgiving for all those 
things we offer, singing his praise as much as we 
are able, reputing this the only honor worthy of 
Him, not consuming with fire the things made by 
him for food, but offering them for ourselves and 
those in need." B 

Iren^eus says: "The Church offers to God, who 
furnishes us food, the first fruits of his gifts — the 
first fruits of his creatures ; not as if he needed 
them ; but that we may be neither unfruitful nor 
ungrateful." That this author had no idea of 
offering up Christ, body, soul and divinity in the 
Eucharist, is very evident from his calling the 

1 Tgnat. Ep. ad Sniyrn. 

2 Can. 3. 
B Apol. ad Ant. 

c Iren. adv. Haeres. lib. iv, cap. 32. 



SACRIFICE OF THE MASS. 275 

tilings offered by the church, "the first fruits of his 
creatures ;" which idea he expresses repeatedly in 
various forms, 1 and proves against the Marcionites, 
that the Father of Christ is the Maker of the world, 
because his creatures are offered in the Eucharist. 
"How," says he,, "shall it clearly appear to them 
that this bread, by which thanks are given, is the 
body of their Lord, and the cup his blood, if they 
say that he is not the son of the Maker of the 
world, that is, his Word, by whom the tree bears 
its fruit and the fountains send forth their streams, 
and the earth gives at first the blade, afterward the 
ear, and then the full grain upon the ear." 3 I suppose 
it would not be considered quite orthodox to call 
the divinity of Christ the creature of God, nor in 
very good taste to associate so closely, the glorified 
and incorruptible body and soul of Christ with the 
growing of grapes and wheat, as Iren^eus here- does 
the eucharistic offerings made in his time by the 
church. Indeed, he must be something more than 
a sound scholar who can distinguish this oblation — - 
hanc oblationem — this bread — eum panem, — and 
the cup — calicem — from that which he afterwards 
speaks of as growing upon the vine and wheat-blade. 
The offerings made at the celebration of the Eucha- 
rist in the time of our author, I conclude to have 
been no other than the productions of the earth, 
the creatures of God, which were believed to be 
sanctified by the invisible operation of the Spirit. 
Besides, his whole argument necessarily supposes 
the offerings of the Eucharist to be something 
distinct from the real body and blood, soul and 

1 Primitias earum quae sunt ejus creaturarum offerentes 

Hanc oblationem Ecclesia sola pura offert Fabricatori offer- 
ens ei cum gratiarum actione ex creatura ejus. Idem, cap. 34. 

2 Quomodo autem constabit eis eum panem in quo gratis 
actae sunt, corpus esse Domini sui, et calicem sanguinis ejus, 
si non ipsum Fabricationis mundi Filium dicant etc. Ibidem. 



276 ON THE EUCHARIST. 

divinity of Christ ; for lie argues that Christ is the 
Son of the Maker of the world, inasmuch as those 
things which are offered as his sacramental body 
and blood in the Eucharist, are the creatures of that 
Being who neither needs nor covets what belongs 
to another. (See above, Letter viii, p. 147-8.) 
Now, had he been a believer of the modern doctrine 
of the Mass, his argument would run as follows: 
Christ is the Son of the Maker of the world, because 
that which is offered in the Mass is the real body 
and blood, soul and divinity of Christ; which 
would not have been at all applicable to the point 
then in dispute, nor indeed of any force whatever, 
the whole argument being resolved into the propo- 
sition : Christ is the Son of the Maker of the world 
because he, who is offered, is the Son of the Maker 
of the world, which is a simple begging of the 
question. 

Cyprian rebukes some of the rich women who 
came to the sacrament without bringing these obla- 
tions, as follows: "Thou comest into the house of 
the Lord without a sacrifice, and takest a part of 
that sacrifice which the poor hath offered." D 

Augustine also reproves this covetous practice 
when he says: "Offer the oblations which are con- 
secrated upon the altar ; a man who is able ought 
to blush if he communicate another's oblation." E 

From these passages it appears that the offerings 
of bread and wine made by the people, were indis- 
criminately called sacrifice and oblation; which are 
the terms applied to the offering of the consecrated 
Eucharist by the cleric. 

But as the offerings made by the people for 
eucharistic purposes were confessedly bread and 
wine in their proper substance, so also were these 

D Cyprian, de Operibns et Eleemos. 
E Aug. Serai, xiii, de Temp. 



SACRIFICE OF THE MASS. 277 

made by the priest, as we may infer from the pas- 
sages just cited from Cyprian and Augustine, where 
the more wealthy communicant is rebuked for tak- 
ing what the poor offers, which would not be true, 
if what had been previously offered did not pre- 
serve its former nature and substance when sacra- 
mentally received. 

Besides, the Fathers themselves expressly teach 
that what is offered in the Eucharist, is substan- 
tially bread and wine. Iren^eus teaches that 
" Christ took that bread which is of the creature, 
and gave thanks, saying 'This is my body.' And 
in like manner the cup, which is, according to us, 
of the creature, he confessed to be his bloody and 
lie taught the new oblation of the Neiv Testament, 
which the church receiving from the Apostles, offers to 
God in all the ivorld." 1 And Cyprian says: "The 
cup which is offered in his memory, should be 
offered mixed with wine. For when Christ says, 
C I am the true vine,' the blood of Christ is then not 
water but wine." And a little after he argues, that 
Melchisedec was a type of Christ; "for," says 
he, "who is more eminently a priest of the Most 
High God than our Lord Jesus Christ? Who 
offered a sacrifice to God the Father ; and offered 
this same that Melchisedec offered, that is, bread 
and wine?" 2 From the fact, therefore, that the 
Fathers call the Eucharist a sacrifice and oblation, 
we can no more infer that they intended a true and 
proper sacrifice, than we can that they intended 



1 Eum qui ex creatura est panis, accepit, et gratias egit, 
dicens: Hoc est corpus meuui. Et calicem similiter, qui est 
ex ea creatura, quae est secundum nos, suum sanguinem con- 
fessus est, et Novi Testamenti novam docuit oblationem ; 
quam ecclesia ab apostolis accipieus, in universo muudo 
offert Deo. Iren. adv. Hoereses, lib. iv, cap. 32. 

2 Cyprian, Ep. lxiii, ad Csecilium. 

24 



278 ON THE EUCHARIST. 

such a sacrifice, when they speak of the offerings 
made by the people for sacramental use. 

3. The Eucharist is called a sacrifice by the an- 
cients, on account of those religious acts performed 
by the communicants. Thus, Iren^eus speaking of 
the Eucharist says : " God would have us continu- 
ally offer a gift at his altar ; there is therefore an 
altar in heaven ; for thither our prayers and obla- 
tions are directed." l Augustine, where he dis- 
courses on a a true and perfect sacrifice," after tell- 
ing us that every work which is referred to God as 
the end of good, is a sacrifice; that man himself 
consecrated in the name of God and vowed to him, 
is a sacrifice, and that the congregation and society 
of the saints is offered to God through the great 
High Priest, as a universal sacrifice^ thus con- 
cludes: "We being many are one body in Christ. 
This the church, also frequently performs at the 
sacrament of the altar, known to the faithful, 
where it is shown that in the thing which she 
offers, she is herself offered." F And in the Ordo 
Romanus, which is older than transubstantiation, 
the Eucharist is called a sacrifice of praise for our 
redemption, and for the hope of our salvation. 
"Remember, Lord, thy servants and handmaids, 
and all that stand around, whose faith and devo- 
tion thou knowest, who offer to thee this sacrifice 
of praise for themselves and all theirs^ for the re- 
demption of their souls, for the hope of salvation ; 
. . . . and to thee do they render their vows." 2 

4. The Eucharist is also called a sacrifice, because 
it is both a commemoration and representation of 

1 Iren. adv. Haereses, lib. iv, cap. 33. 
v Aug. de Civitat. Dei, lib. x, cap. 6. 

2 . . . . Qui tibi offerunt hoc eacrrficium laudis pro se suis- 
que omnibus pro redemptione animarum suarum, pro spe 
Balutis .... tibique reddunt vota sua. Ordo Roman., p. 62. 



SACRIFICE OF THE MASS. 279 

the sacrifice of Christ upon the cross. The Jews 
called that the Passover which was only a memorial 
of it. So, also, may Christ be representatively sacri- 
ficed in the Eucharist as St. Augustine says: " Was 
not Christ offered once for all? And yet he is 
daily immolated in the sacrament by the people ; 
neither does he lie who says that Christ is immo- 
lated ; for if the sacraments had not the similitude 
of those things of which they are sacraments, they 
would in no manner be sacraments, but from this 
similitude they often take the name of the things 
themselves." Which he thus explains: "That 
which is a memorial of anything does often take 
the name of that of which it is a memorial, on ac- 
count of its similitude, as when the Pasch ap- 
proaches, we say to-morrow or next day is the 
passion of Christ, when he has suffered once only 
many years ago ; and on the Lord's day we say, 
to-day Christ rose again, for, on account of its 
similitude, it is called that day though it is not." x 
In another place he tells us that "a visible sacri- 
fice is a sacrament of an invisible sacrifice, that is, 
a sacred sign;" and, " nothing else ought to be 
understood by a sacrifice, than a sacrifice which is 
preferred before it; because that which by all is 
called a sacrifice, is a sign of a true sacrifice." G 

Chrysostom discourses at some length on the sa- 
crifice of Christ once made, and delivers himself 
much in the same manner as his African contem- 



1 Nonne Christus semel oblatus est ? Et tamen in Sacra- 
mento quoticlie populis immolatur, etc. Illud quod alicujus 
memoriale est propter similitudinem, saepe ejus rei cujus me- 
moriale est, nomen accipiat, ut appropinquante Paschate, 
dicimus eras aut perendie est passio Christi, cum semel tantum 
ante multos annos sit passus, et die dominica dicimus, hodie 
Christus resurrexit, propter similitudinem enim dies ille esse 
dicitur, quod tamen non est. Aug. Epist. exx, ad Honorat. 

G Idem, De Civitat. Dei, lib. x, cap. 5. 



280 ON THE EUCHARIST. 

porary. In allusion to the multiplicity of the 
Jewish sacrifices, he remarks, that their " multitude 
show that they never make clean;" and are an 
"accusing of sins but not a deliverance from them ; 
an accusation of infirmity, not a proof of their effi- 
cacy. For because the first availed nothing, the 
second was offered ; and because this also availed 
nothing, again another ; so that there was a proof 
of sins. Therefore, the making of an offering is a 
proof of sins, but always making such is a demonstra- 
tion of their infirmity. But in regard to Christ, on 
the contrary, he was once offered, and that suffices 
forever." And he makes a fine illustration of this 
drawn from the healing art, where he says, that 
a an efficient medicine that procures health, and 
can change all the disease by a single application, 
proves its own power, by doing away with the neces- 
sity of a re-application ; but if it is always applied, 
it is an evident sign that it has no virtue." How 
perfectly fatal is all this to what is called the sacri- 
fice of the Mass, which is, by the Trent doctors de- 
clared to be a propitiatory sacrifice. Their frequent 
repetition demonstrates their inefficacy. He, a little 
after, adds: "The wounds being removed there is 
no longer need of the remedy ;" and asks, "What 
then, do we not offer daily ? We do indeed offer, 
but we recall his death to memory ; and this 
memory is one, not many. . . . Our Chief Priest is he 
that offered a sacrifice which purifies us. We now 
offer that which was then offered and incapable of 
being expended. This is made for a memorial of 
that which was then made. For he says, ' Do this 
for a remembrance of me.' As the High Priest then 
did, we make not another, but we always make the 
same sacrifice, rather we make a remembrance of 
sacrifice." 11 By the expressions, "we always make 

H Chrysost. Horn, xvii, § 3, in Epist. ad Heb. 



SACRIFICE OF THE MASS. 281 

the same sacrifice/' and "we now offer what was 
then offered," he evidently means, we now offer one 
kind of sacrifice which is neither to be changed nor 
expended, in contradistinction from the varied sacri- 
fices under the old dispensation, and we now make 
the same sacrifice commemoratively, as Christ orig- 
inally made in reality. Such sentiments are quite 
fatal to the professed sacrifice of Romish altars, 
which is affirmed to be a sacrifice, not only of praise 
and thanksgiving, or a mere commemoration of the 
sacrifice made upon the cross, but also a propitia- 
tory sacrifice, which ought to be offered for the liv- 
ing and dead, for sins, punishments, satisfactions 
and other necessities. 1 Of such a propitiatory sacri- 
fice in the Eucharist, the ancient church had no 
idea, as we may farther learn from others. 

"We always offer him," says Theophylact, 
"rather we make a remembrance of his offering. . . . 
Do we not always offer unbloody sacrifices? Yes, 
we make a remembrance of his death." 2 

Eusebius expresses the same quite clearly: "He 
has delivered to us continually to offer a memo- 
rial instead of a sacrifice to God." I 

It is also worthy of remark that the older school- 
men, who lived before the sacrifice of the Mass was 
understood in its present sense, and as taught by 
the Council of Trent, also teach that the Eucharist 
is called "a sacrifice and oblation, because it is a 
memorial and representation of a true sacrifice, and 
that holy immolation made upon the altar of the 
cross." 3 St. Thomas Aquinas seems to have fol- 
lowed the author of the Sentences ; for he says, 

1 Concil. Trident. Missse, Canon 3. 

2 In Heb. x. 

1 Euseb. Demonstrat. Evang., lib. i, cap. 10. 

3 Ad hoc breviter dici potest, illud quod offertur et conse* 
cratur a sacerdote, vocari sacrificium et oblationem, quia me- 

24* 



282 ON THE EUCHARIST. 

" Because the celebration of this sacrament is a cer- 
tain image of the passion of Christ, and, because also 
by this sacrament we are made partakers of the fruit 
of the Lord's passion, it is fitly called the sacrifice of 
Christ, first indeed because, as Augustine to Simpli- 
cius says : Images are accustomed to be called by 
the names of those things of which they are images ; 
as when we look upon a painted table or wall we 
say, that is Cicero, and that is Sallust ; but the 
celebration of this sacrament is a certain represen- 
tative image of Christ's passion, which is his true 
immolation. — In another manner as to the effect of 
Christ's passion, because by this sacrament we 
are made partakers of the fruit of the Lord's 
passion." 1 

5. The Jews and heathen reproached the early 
Christians for their want of altars and sacrifices in 
their worship as a great impiety. To this they re- 
plied in their apologies, that they had no proper 
altars, nor visible and external sacrifices, but in 
their stead, they offered the more spiritual sacrifices 
of praise and thanksgiving, of honest lives and 
virtuous actions, which were the sacrifices of Chris- 
tians, and more acceptable to God than any others. 

" We are not Atheists," says Justin, as they were 
called, because they had not the visible worship of 
sacrifices, " but we worship the Maker of all things, 
who needs not blood and libations and incense, . . . 
with the word of prayer and thanksgiving, . . . giving 
him praise as much as we are able, counting this the 

moria est et representatio veri sacrificii, et sanctse immola- 
tionis factse in ara crucis. Petr. Lombard., lib. iv, dist. 12. 

1 Turn quia hujus sacramenti celebratio, imago quaedam e^ 
Passionis Ckristi, turn etiam quia per hoc sacramentum par- 
ticipes efficimur fructus dominicse Passionis. . . . convenienter 
dicitur Christi immolatio, etc. Aquiuat. Sum., Part iii, 
quoest. 83. 



SACRIFICE OF THE MASS. 283 

only honor worthy of him, . . . and we suppose that 
God needs no material offering from men." 1 

Again, "prayers and thanksgivings made by 
those who are worthy, are the only perfect and ac- 
ceptable sacrifices to God." J " We are charged with 
atheism," says Athenagorus, "by many who mea- 
sure their piety by the law of sacrifices ; but what 
have I to do with your whole burnt-offerings which 
God needs not? But, we must offer him an 
unbloody sacrifice and bring him a rational wor- 
ship.'" 2 The rational ivorship, in this passage, is 
explanatory of the unbloody sacrifice. In answer 
to the charge that the Christians did not sacrifice 
for the Emperors, Tertullian replies: " Because we 
do it not for ourselves, it follows by the same reason 
that we should not sacrifice for others. " K He after- 
ward speaks of the sacrifice made by him as a rich 
sacrifice, to wit, "prayer from a chaste body, from 
an innocent soul, proceeding from the Holy Spi- 
rit." 1 ' "The Host to be sacrificed," says Minutius, 
ft is a good soul, a pure mind and a sincere con- 
science, these are our sacrifices, these are the 

sacred things of God." 3 And when Celsus objects 
that the Christians had no altars, O'rigen replies: 
" Our altars are the sovereignty of each righteous 
man's mind, from which is truly and understand- 
ing^ sent up sweet incense,, prayers from a pure 
conscience " 4 So also Lactantius says: "The chief 
way of worshiping God, is praise directed to God 

1 Apol. ii. 

J Dialog, cum Trypho. 

2 Athenag. Legat. pro Christ. 
K Tertul. Apol. adv. Gentes, cap. 10. 
L Idem, cap. 30. 

3 Cum sit litabilis hostia bonus animus et pura meus, et 
sincera conscientia — haec nostra sacnlicia, hsec Dei sacra 
sunt. Min. Octav. 

4 Origen. cont. Celsum, lib. viii. 



284 ON THE EUCHARIST. 

from the mouth of a just man." 1 In view of these 
plain testimonies, it is more than improbable that 
those defenders of the Christian religion, should 
have thus replied to the objection made against 
them, that they had no proper sacrifice, nay, deny 
that such a sacrifice is to be performed, as does 
Arnobius in his disputation against the nations/ 
had they entertained any such idea of an external 
sacrifice, as is now entertained by the advocates of the 
modern sacrifice of the Mass. How fitly might the 
argument of a modern Eomanist have been urged, 
had those ancients believed as our contemporaries 
now do. They might have replied, "Why do you 
accuse us of an ungodly and atheistic religion? 
Instead of having no external sacrifice, we hold 
that ' without external sacrifice there is no complete 
system of divine adoration. Take away sacrifice, 
and God is no more served than creatures may be 
served ; for every form of worship, with the excep- 
tion of sacrifice, may be offered up within certain 
limits to creatures. Sacrifice, sirs, belongs to the 
Almighty alone, and that is the form of worship 
by which divine worship is to be distinguished ; be- 
cause external sacrifice is an offering to Almighty 
Gud of an external thing for the purpose of ac- 
knowledging his superior authority; acknowledg- 
ing that we adore him with our whole man, and 
leave nothing for ourselves — that we have received 
every thing from him, and that it is proper we 
should offer up every thing to him. So if you will 
travel over all countries you will find no people 
that have not an idea of external sacrifice in some 
way or other Cicero, a Pagan, states this as an 

1 Summus igitur colendi Dei ritus est, ex ore justi homims 
ad Deum directa laudatio. Lactant. de Vero cultu. lib. vi, 
§25. 

2 Lib. vii. 



SACRIFICE OF THE MASS. 28'5 

argument for the belief of a God, that there never 
was a people known who did not admit the neces- 
sity of sacrifice, and who did not use external sacri- 
fice ; that you would sooner find a city without a 
sun than a people without an altar. Now, as the 
Almighty God required sacrifice and established 
its necessity — aye, and its very form, in the old law, 
shall Christians do less than Pagans and Jews, 
and exclude this essential form of worship ? Shall 
not rather Christians, who have the most perfect 
system of religion, have the most perfect form of 
worship and sacrifice? Both reason and religion 
demand it.' 1 So that you err exceedingly, sirs, in 
blaming us for having no external and formal 
sacrifice, since we abound in this kind of worship 
and have it in its most perfect form. You do in- 
deed offer to your dumb gods your beastly sacri- 
fices, but we offer upon our holy altars the glorified 
body and blood, the soul and divinity of the Son of 
God ; a sacrifice infinitely superior to all the Jewish 
and Pagan sacrifices ever offered, a sacrifice pro- 
pitiatory and profitable for sins, punishments, satis- 
factions and other necessities; nay, for the slum- 
bering dead even ; and we are ready to offer our 
external sacrifice for emperors whether living or 
dead; and if their spirits are lingering in the 
dreary regions of purgatory, our sacrifices of the 
Mass will help their souls and aid them in their 
escape from the iron grasp of the prince of dark- 
ness." 

6. When the Fathers call the Eucharist a sacri- 
fice they add such qualifying epithets, as plainly 
indicate that they did not regard it as a proper and 
material sacrifice. Cyril of Jerusalem says : " Then 
after finishing this spiritual sacrifice, and the un- 
bloody worship over this sacrifice of propitiation, 

i Dr. Ryder, President of the College of the Holy Cross. 



286 ON THE EUCHARIST. 

we beseech God for the common peace of the 
churches." 1 He afterward exhorts: "Preserve 
yourselves without any offence, lest you separate 
yourselves from communion, lest by the defilement 
of sin you deprive yourselves of these holy and 
spiritual mysteries." 2 By the term spiritual he evi- 
dently means to distinguish this sacrifice from all 
corporeal oblations, and makes it consist rather of 
those moral and intellectual exercises of prayer, 
thanksgiving and praise, than in the offering of 
the visible elements. 

It is also called a spiritual sacrifice by Eusebius, 
Theodoret, and others. As it is therefore evident 
that a spiritual sacrifice cannot be an external and 
visible one, so it is equally clear that these authors 
did not regard the Eucharist as a proper sacrifice, 
but rather as an oblation, representative and com- 
memorative of the true and proper sacrifice of our 
Lord upon the cross. Thus Christ is said to be 
" sacrificed without being sacrificed ;" M to be "of- 
fered in image ; " N and in the Book of Sacraments 
attributed to Ambrose, it is said to be done "in a 
figure of the body and blood of our Lord Jesus 
Christ.'' ° If it be in a figure it cannot be in reality, 
but in commemoration, as Augustine says, " Chris- 
tians by the most holy oblation and participation 
of the body and blood of Christ, celebrate the memory 
of the same sacrifice that has already been accom- 
plished." 1. And Eusebius in his Demonstrations 
makes the matter plain when he says, that " Christ 
being sacrificed with tokens of good, has offered to 

1 Catech. Mystagog. v, § 6. 

2 Idem, § 19. 

M Diatypos Concil. Nicen. apud Gelas. Cyzic. 

N Ambros. de Offic, lib. i, cap. 48. 

°Lib. iv, cap. 5. 

p Aug. contra Faustum, lib. xx, cap. 18. 



SACRIFICE OF THE MASS. 287 

his Father a wonderful sacrifice and an excellent 
victim for our salvation, and commanded us con- 
tinually to offer to God a memorial instead of a 
sacrifice." Q If, therefore, the Eucharist be a memo- 
rial of the real sacrifice of Christ made upon the 
cross, it is not the same sacrifice as was then made ; 
for the thing remembered, and the memorial by 
which it is remembered are not one and the same 
thing. "But the sacrifice acceptable to God is the 
separation of the body and its passions not to be 
repented of, which in reality is the true worship of 
God." R And "not unfitly do we honor God by 
prayer, and send up that best and most holy sacri- 
fice with righteousness, giving honor to the most 
righteous Word, through whom we have received 
knowledge, giving glory for what we have learned 
by him. There is, therefore, amongst us here a 
terrestrial altar, to wit, the multitude of those who 
are devoted to prayer, having, as it were, one com- 
mon voice and one knowledge .... For the sacri- 
fice of the Church is the word which is exhaled 
from the souls of the saints, where the sacrifice and 
the whole understanding are together laid open to 
God." * Chrysostom says : " We no more offer sheep 
and cattle, nor blood and the odor of roasted flesh : 
all these are abolished, and instead of them a 
rational worship has been introduced. What is 
this rational worship ? That which is performed 
by the mind and by the spirit, .... which has no 
need of a body, nor organs, nor places ; such are 
gentleness, temperance, almsgiving, long-suffering, 
and holiness of mind." s Surely, our author could 
not have regarded external sacrifice as a Christian 

QEuseb. Demonstrat. Evang., lib. i, cap. 10. 
R Clcm. Alex. Stromat, lib. v, cap. 11, p. 686. 
1 Idem, Stromat., lib. vii, cap. 6, vol. ii, p. 818. 
s Clirysost. in Ep. ad Heb., Homil. xi, § 3. 



288 ON THE EUCHARIST. 

sacrifice, par excellence, for he adds: "Do you see 
by what sacrifices God is well pleased? Do you see 
also that the Jewish went out of use many years 
ago, but these took their place? These therefore 
we offer. Those were of the wealth of those who 
possessed, but these of virtue ; those were external, 
these internal; those could be made by any one, 
these a few can perform. As much as a man is 
better than a sheep, so much is this sacrifice better 
than that, for thou offered thy soul a sacrifice." 

Epiphanius having spoken of the great number 
of sacrifices made by the Jews, says: " Henceforth 
God, by the advent of his Christ in the flesh, cut off 
all occasion of sacrifices, this one sacrifice, which is 
the sacrifice of Christ, having perfected all the pre- 
ceding, because Christ our Passover has been sacri- 
ficed, according to the Scripture." T 

From the foregoing it is certain that the modern 
doctrine, which affirms that the same offering is 
now made in the sacrament of the Eucharist that 
was made upon the cross, was unknown to the 
early church. And it is a matter of astonishment 
that men of reputed knowledge in the things of 
Christianity, are to be found advocating their cor- 
poreal and external sacrifice as a necessary mark 
of the true Church of God, and fulminating their 
curses against those who, better informed, demur 
at their material worship, and regard it as a grand 
novelty ; nay, the prime heresy of the church which 
attempts to bear down Scripture, reason, and anti- 
quity, in order to elevate a licentious authority 
upon their common ruin. 

7. But a true and propitiatory sacrifice requires a 
duly authenticated priesthood ; hence by the second 
of those canons above cited, the doctors of Trent 
declare that, by the words, ' Do this in remembrance 

T Epiphan. adv. Hsereses, lib. i, torn, iii, p. 368. 



SACRIFICE OF THE MASS. 289 

of me/ Christ instituted his Apostles sacrificing 
priests. But if by these words the Apostles were 
made priests when they received the bread, as the 
Council teaches, then by the equivalent words 'Drink 
ye all of this,' they were again made priests at the 
delivery of the cup. From the words of institution, 
therefore, there is the same evidence that they 
were made priests twice as there is that they were 
made such once. But if they were not instituted 
priests twice, then they were not once. 

Besides, these words were directed to the Apos- 
tles only, or to all Christians in general. If to 
the former only, then no lay Christian has any 
divine warrant for receiving the sacrament in either 
kind, but the priests only ; but if to the latter, then 
all Christians are made sacrificing priests equally 
with the Apostles and all others of the clergy. 
Lastly, it has been above shown that no true and 
proper sacrifice was ever made before Christ offered 
himself upon the cross; and that there Christ 
offered himself once for all ; therefore, the Apostles 
having power given them at the last supper to do 
only what Christ then did^ they could not have been 
made such sacrificing priests as the Council of 
Trent affirms, but were authorized only, by the 
words under consideration, to commemorate his 
bloody passion with thanksgiving, and thereby 
'show forth his death till he come/ 

The Apostle affirms that Christ is a priest for- 
ever; (Heb. vi: 20;) and therefore can have no 
successors. And because he continueth forever, 
ch. vii: 24, he hath an unchangeable, or more ex- 
pressively, an untransmissible — xTrccpafiarov — priest- 
hood — rendered in the margin, " which passeth not 
from one to another." And this testimony of an 
inspired Apostle is instead of all the unscriptural 
assumptions of the ages. Nay, what need of a 
sacrificing priest, since Christ has offered, one per- 
25 



290 ON THE EUCHARIST. 

feet and sufficient sacrifice for the inhabitants of 
all time? "When Christ the Lord came," says Cy- 
prian/ "concerning whom it was written in the 
chapter of the book, that he would, by his death, 
fulfill the Avill of the Father, sacrifices ceased .... 
and of so great dignity was that one oblation of 
our Redeemer, that one sufficed to take away the 
sins of the world." 

That which is perfect in its nature, infinite in its 
merits, and unceasing in its duration, admits of 
nothing additional. Does he, who trod the wine- 
press alone, who poured out his soul unto death, 
and proclaimed, in expiring agony upon his cross ; 
It is finished, does he require the aid of him whose 
breath is in his nostrils, a frail mortal, a worm, a sin- 
ner, to supplement his great propitiatory sacrifice ? 

We are amazed at the boldness that dares con- 
front the authority of the Sacred Oracles, which 
clearly affirm, that Christ does not offer himself 
often ; for then must he often have suffered since the 
foundation of the world; which unmistakably 
teaches that suffering is inseparable from a true 
sacrificial offering for sin ; which is not true of the 
Mass; and therefore, it is no true or propitiatory 
sacrifice. Without shedding of blood there is no 
remission; (Heb. ix: 22,) therefore the unbloody 
sacrifice of the Mass procures no remission and is 
no proper sacrifice. 

But, " I have no pleasure in you, saith the Lord 
of hosts, neither will I accept an offering at your 
hand. For, from the rising of the sun even unto 
the going down of the same, my name shall be 
great among the Gentiles ; and in every place in- 
cense shall be offered unto my name, and a pure 
offering ; for mv name shall be great among the 
heathen, saith the Lord of hosts," (Mai. i: 10, 11.) 
This, of late years, has been put forward as a pro- 

1 De Ratio. Circumcis. p. 318. 



SACRIFICE OP THE MASS. 291 

phecy of the unbloody sacrifice of the Mass, by the 
advocates of the Roman Church. But the better 
interpretation of this prophecy, applies it to the 
more spiritual worship under the Christian dispen- 
sation, in contradistinction from the offerings of 
victims under the Jewish economy. In this man- 
ner several of the ancients understood it. Alluding 
to this prophecy of Malachi, Iren^ius inquires: 
"What other name is there which is glorified among 
the Gentiles, than that which belongs to our Lord, 
through whom the Father is glorified, and man is 
glorified ? And because it properly belongs to his 
Son, and by him he was made man, He calls it 

his Therefore seeing that the name of the Son 

is proper to the Father, and the church offers unto 
God Almighty through Jesus Christ, well is it 
said with respect to each ; 'And in every place in- 
cense is offered in my name, and a pure sacrifice.' 
But John, in the Apocalypse, says that incenses 
are the prayers of the Saints." * Evidently the 
offerings made to God through Christ by the church, 
were the prayers of her saints, but not the body, 
soul and divinity of Christ in the sacrament. Cle- 
ment of Alexandria questions and answers as fol- 
lows: "How therefore shall I sacrifice to the Lord? 
The sacrifice to the Lord, he says, is the contrite 
spirit. How then shall I crown or anoint him ; or 
what incense shall I offer to the Lord ? The odor of 
sweet smell to the Lord, he says, is the heart which 
glorifies him who made it. These are the crowns, 
the sacrifices, the aromas and flowers of God." 2 
More explicitly Tertullian discourses : " When the 
sacerdotal law was appointed by Moses in Leviticus, 
we find it prescribed to the people of Israel that 
sacrifices should be offered to God in no place, 

1 Iren. adv. Heres., lib. iv, c. 33. 

2 2 Clem. Alex. Psedag. lib. iii, p. 2G1. 



292 ON THE EUCHARIST. 

except in the land of promise, which the Lord God 
would give to the people of Israel and their breth- 
ren afterward the spirit predicted by the pro- 
phets, that it should come to pass, that in every 
land, or in every place, sacrifices should be offered 
to God, as he said by his messenger Malachi, one 
of the twelve prophets: I toill not accept a sacrifice 
from your hands, since, from the rising even to the 
setting sun my name is renowned among all nations, 
saith the Lord Almighty. And in every place clean 
sacrifices are offered in my name. Also in the 
Psalms David says : ' Offer to God ye people of the 
Gentiles,' doubtless because in every land the 
preaching of the Apostles was to go forth. Offer 
to G-od renown and honor ; offer to God the sacri- 
fices of his name. Lift up the victims and enter into 
his courts. For God must be appeased, not with 
earthly sacrifices, but with spiritual; so we read 
that it is written : The contrite and humble heart is 
Gods victim. And elsewhere : The sacrifices of God 
are the sacrifice of praise ; and render to the Most 
High thy vows. In this manner spiritual sacrifices 
of praise are designated, and a contrite heart de- 
monstrated to be a sacrifice acceptable to God. 
Thus, therefore, carnal sacrifices are understood as 
reprobrated, concerning which Isaiah also speaks, 
saying: What have I to do ivith the multitude of 
your sacrifices, saith the Lord: so that spiritual 
sacrifices are declared acceptable^ as the Prophets 
announce. Because also ye have adulterated my fine 
flour, says God, your prayer is an abomination to me. 
And to this he adds : Your holocausts and sacrifices, 
the fat of he-goats and the blood of bulls, I will not. 
Nor may you come to appear before me, for who hath 
required this from your hands f Concerning spiritual 
sacrifices he adds, saying: And in every place clean 
sacrifices are offered in my name, saith the Lord. 1 

1 Tert. adv. Judaeos, cap. v. 



SACRIFICE OP THE MASS. 293 

Jerome, commenting on the words of the Prophet, 
remarks: "Now therefore is this word fitly made 
to the priests of the Jews, who offer to the Lord 
the blind, the lame and the feeble, to be immolated, 
that they may know that to carnal victims should 
succeed spiritual victims ; and by no means the 
blood of bulls and of goats, but incense, that is, the 
prayers of the Saints, should be offered to the Lord ; 
and not in the one province of the land of Judea, 
neither in the one city of Jerusalem of Judea, but 
in every place oblation should be offered, and that 
by no means unclean^ as among the people of 
Israel, but clean, as in the ceremonies of Chris- 
tians." ' 

The interpretation of this beautiful prophecy of 
Malachi, by these Christian Fathers, contrasts re- 
markably with the partisan application of it to the 
sacrifice of the Mass by Bishops Hughes, Gibbons, 
Barrister French, and the rest. The interpretation 
of the former accords with the spirit and teaching 
of the New Testament, that of the latter, only with 
the dogma and institution of a much later age. 

Besides, the Hebrew word, mincha, here used by 
Malachi, is the term elsewhere employed to indicate 
a thank-offering, but not a propitiatory sacrifice. 
It is the same as found in Gen. iv, 3, which signifies 
the thank N offering of Cain, and consisted of the first 
ripened fruits of the earth. So that, if it could, by 
any degree of probability, be understood as appli- 
cable to the Eucharist, it would thus far only go to 
prove this sacrament to be an offering of praise and 
thanksgiving to God for his gifts, but not a sacrifice 
for sin. And this view is confirmed from the fact, 
that this offering was sometimes made in connection 
with the victim-offering, Zebach, as in the case of 
Abel; which shows that it did not, of itself, signifi- 

1 Com. in Mai. c. 1. 
25* 



294 ON THE EUCHARIST. 

caritly point out the sacrifice of redemption by our 
Lord Jesus Christ, and for that reason was not re- 
spected by God in the case of Cain. In a word, it 
was not a sacrifice representative of the shedding 
of blood ; and hence its unsuitableness as a proto- 
type of the Eucharist, which is the symbolical repre- 
sentation of the bloody passion upon the cross. We 
are therefore compelled in view, both of the extra- 
ordinary gifts of the Spirit prophetically revealed 
under the Old, and historically experienced under 
the New dispensation, and by just criticism, to ac- 
cept the above patristic and Protestant interpreta- 
tion of this prophecy of Malachi. 

Yours truly, 

E.O. P. 



LETTER XVI. 

WORSHIP OF THE SACRAMENT. 

Dear Brother: — Another consequence of tran- 
substantiation, not inferior in importance to that 
last considered, is the practice, observed by your 
communion, of paying divine worship to the Eu- 
charist. The Council of Trent authorizes this wor- 
ship in the following language: " There is there- 
fore left no room to doubt but that all the faithful 
of Christ should, in their veneration for this most 
holy sacrament, give it the worship of latria which 
is due to the true God, according to the custom al- 
ways received in the Catholic Church. Nor is it 
therefore the less to be adored, because it was in- 
stituted by Christ our Lord that it should be 
eaten." 1 Again, "If any one should say that 
Christ the Only Begotten Son of God is not to be 
adored in the holy sacrament of the Eucharist with 
the worship of latria as also with external worship, 
and therefore not to be venerated with peculiar fes- 
tive celebrity, nor solemnly carried about in proces- 
sions according to the laudable and universal rite 
and custom of holy church, nor publicly presented 
to the people to be adored, and that its worshipers 
are idolators ; let him be anathema." 2 

1 Nullus itaque dubitandi locus relinquitur, quin omnes 
Christi fideles, pro more in Catholica Ecclesia semper recep- 
to, latrise cultum qui vero Deo debetur, huic sanctissimo Sa- 
cramento in veneratione exhibeant; neque enim ideo minus 
est adorandum, quod fuerit a Christo Domino, ut sumatur, 
institutum. Sess. xiii, cap. 5. 

2 Si quis dixerit, in sancto eucharistisesacramento Christum 
unigenitum Dei Filium non esse cultu latrise, etiam externa, 



296 ON THE EUCHARIST. 

The manner of this worship is thus described by 
the Roman Missal : " Having uttered the words of 
consecration, the priest immediately adores the 
consecrated host upon his knees ; he rises, shows it 
to the people, replaces it upon the corporale, and 
again adores it." 1 The same worship is also paid 
to the consecrated cup with similar rites. The 
priest having adored it, rises up and elevates the 
host and shows it to the people, who at the tink- 
ling of the little mass-bell, fall down upon their 
knees and worship it as if it were God himself. 
They also pray to it as Jesus Christ " Lamb of God, 
who takest away the sins of the world, have mercy 
on us, Lamb of God, who takest away the sins of 
the world, have mercy on us, Lamb of God, who 
takest away the sins of the world, give us peace." 2 
This practice we regard as having no foundation in 
Scripture, reason, or antiquity. 

1. The Apostle says: "All Scripture is given by 
inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, 
for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righte- 
ousness; that the man of God may be perfect, 
thoroughly furnished unto all good works." (2 
Tim. iii: 16, 17.) I infer from this passage that 
all works of devotion not furnished by the letter 

adorandum; atque ided nee festiva pecnliari celebritate vene- 
randum, neque in processionibus, secundum laudibilem et 
universalem ecclesiae sanctse ritum et consuetudinem, solemni- 
ter circumgestandum, vel non publics, ut adoretur, populo 
proponendum, et ejus adoratores esse idololatras; anathema 
sit. Idem, cap. viii, can. 6. 

1 Prolatis verbis consecrationis, statim hostiam consecratam 
genuflexus adorat; surgit, ostendit populo, reponit super cor- 
porale, iterum adorato. Missale Rom. p. 212. 

2 Agnus Dei, qui tollis peccata mundi, miserere nobis. Ag- 
nus Dei, qui tollis peccata mundi, miserere nobis. Agnus 
Dei, qui tollis peccata mundi, dona nobis pacem. Idem, p. 
219. 



WORSHIP OF THE SACRAMENT. 2 9 7 

or spirit of the inspired Scripture, are not good 
and therefore forbidden. 

So Tertullian observes: "Scripture denies what 
it does not make known." 1 Now there cannot be 
found one word in all the inspired Scripture to 
authorize the worship of the sacrament ; nor, so far 
as I know, have the ablest and most zealous advo- 
cates of this practice ever pretended to prove the 
orthodoxy of their usage from any Scripture com- 
mand. This perfect silence of the Word of God in 
regard to a matter so practical and important in 
your church, is fearfully significant, and should, of 
itself, strike alarm to the conscience of every hu- 
man being who bows the knee and offers supreme 
worship to the Eucharist. 

But this practice is expressly forbidden by the 
second commandment. "Thou shalt not make 
unto thee any graven image, or the likeness of any 
thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the 
earth beneath, or that is in the water under the 
earth ; thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, 
nor serve them ; for I the Lord thy God am a jeal- 
ous God." (Ex. xx : 4, 5.) 

This command must be understood as embracing 
a general prohibition of the worship of any and 
every thing, except God himself, either with the 
heart, or by external acts of homage. It is here 
worthy of remark, that in this command, God pre- 
sents himself as a spouse, united to his bride the 
Church, over which he watches with a jealous eye, 
knowing her disposition by nature to depart from 
Him, forget her bridal vows of chastity, and cor- 
rupt herself by adulterous acts of idolatry. He, 
therefore, expressly forbids her to form, serve, or 
even bow down herself religiously, to any thing 
bearing the marks of human formation, such acts 

i Negat Scriptura quod non notat. De Monogamia, c. 4. 



298 ON THE EUCHARIST. 

or affections being regarded as idolatrous. Hence 
all worship, and bowing down before the conse- 
crated host, before pictures, or other representations, 
is strictly prohibited by the second commandment, 
as idolatrous. 

"All the marks," says Elliott, "that the Scrip- 
tures give us of an idol, and all the reproaches they 
cast upon it, do as well suit the popish god in the 
sacrament, and as heavily light upon it, as any 
thing that was worshiped by the heathen. It 
is the mark and reproach of a heathen idol that 
it was made by men. And is not the god in 
the Mass as much the work of men's hands 
as any of the pagan idols were? Let none 
be offended when we say the Komanists make their 
god, or make the body and blood of Christ, for it 
is their own word and solemnly used by them. 
And one of the greatest reasons for which they 
deny the validity of Protestant ministers is, because 
in their ordinations they do not pretend to confer a 
power of making the body of Christ. 

Moreover, the Scripture not only describes an 
idol, but also exposes it to laughter and contempt, 
by reckoning up the many outrages and ill usages 
it is obnoxious to, and from which it cannot rescue 
itself. Now there is no abuse of this kind which 
they reckon up, but the god which the Roman 
Catholics adore in the Mass is as subject to as any 
pagan idol ever was. If Laban be laughed at for 
serving gods which were stolen away, (Gen. xxxi, 30,) 
are they not as much to be laughed at whose god 
has been so often in danger of being stolen by 
thieves, that they have been forced to make a law 
for its safe custody? If men are reproached for 
worshiping what at last may be cast to the moles 
and bats, (Isa. ii, 20,) are not the Romanists equally 
censurable for worshiping that which may become 
the prey of rats and mice, &c. ? If it was a suffi- 



WORSHIP OF THE SACRAMENT. 299 

cient proof that the Babylonian gods were idols 
because they were carried away captive, will it not 
be as good an argument to prove the host of the 
Mass to be an idol ? For they carry it about from 
place to place to be worshiped, and there is one 
day in the year set apart for that purpose, namely, 
Corpus Christi day. And if we may believe history, 
this host has been likewise taken from Christians 
and carried away captive by the Mohammedans. 

In the forty-fourth chapter of Isaiah we have the 
following description of an idol : ' The smith with 
the tongs both worketh in the coals and fashioneth 
it with hammers, and worketh it with the strength 
of his arms. The carpenter stretcheth out his rule ; 
he marketh it out with a line ; he fitteth it with 
planes, and he marketh it out with the compass, 
and maketh it after the figure of a man, according 
to the beauty of a man, that it may remain in the 
house. He burneth part thereof in the fire ; with 
part thereof he eateth flesh ; and the residue thereof 
he maketh a god, even his graven image ; he falleth 
down unto it, and worshipeth it, and prayeth unto 
it, and saith, Deliver me, for thou art my god.' 
The parallel between this and making the host and 
its worship, is very striking. 

The farmer soweth wheat, it grows, it ripens, is 
reaped, and is threshed ; it is ground at the mill, 
it is sifted with a sieve : with a part thereof the 
fowls and cattle are fed ; another part is taken and 
baked by the baker, yet it is no god ; it is brought 
forward and laid on the altar, and yet it is no god ; 
the priest handles and crosses it, and yet it is no 
god ; he pronounces over it a few w r ords, when 
instantly it is the supreme God. He falls down 
before it and prays to it, saying: ' Thou art my 
God.' He lifts it up to the people and cries, ' Ecce 
Agnus Dei, qui tollit mundi peccata. — Behold the 
Lamb of God, that taketh away the sin of the 



300 ON THE EUCHARIST. 

world.' The whole congregation fall down and 
worship it, crying, Ilea culpa, mea culpa, mea max- 
ima culpa — My fault, my fault, my very great fault. 
How exact the parallel between popish and heathen 
idolatry." 1 

The trans ubstantiationist, however, vastly out- 
does the heathen in extravagance and impiety ; for 
no heathen ever supposed the materials of which 
he made his idol, to be substantially changed by 
the operation. Their gods were still the same 
gold, silver, wood and stone, as before ; and they 
worshiped them not as their supreme gods, but 
rather as their images, or representatives. And if 
their idols were defaced, broken, stolen, or carried 
away captive, they were far from believing that the 
supreme object of their adoration was defaced, 
broken, stolen, or carried away captive. Such in- 
juries might affect the image, but their gods them- 
selves were above such casualties. Having made 
his god out of bread, the Papist not only worships 
it, but, what is unheard of in the follies of Gentile 
idolatry and repugnant to every feeling of humanity 
and true piety, he presently eats it. The Egyptians 
could worship the vilest of creatures, but they never 
dared to eat what they had once worshiped. But 
Komanists constantly cast this indignity upon the 
Lord Jesus Christ. Well might they be instructed 
by the words of a pagan, who said, "That among 
all the religions of his time, there was no man so 
foolish as to pretend to eat his god." 2 And to such 
we would say: either desist from this unscriptural 
practice, or cease to persuade reasonable men to 
become Christians. 



1 See Elliott on Romanism, vol. 1, pp. 297, 298, and fol- 
lowing. 

2 Ecquam tam amentem esse pntas, qui illud quo vescatur 
Deum credat esse ? Cicero, lib. iii, de Natnra Deorum. 



WORSHIP OF THE SACRAMENT. 301 

II. The Council of Florence decreed as follows, 
respecting the sacraments. "The sacraments of 
the new law are seven, namely, baptism, confirma- 
tion, the Eucharist, penance, extreme unction, orders, 
and matrimony All these sacraments are per- 
fected by three things, to wit, by things as to matter, 
by words as to form, and by the person of the minister 
who confers the sacrament with the intention of 
doing what the church does; if any of which be 
wanting, the sacrament is not perfected.'' 1 

In like manner the Council of Trent decrees: 
" whoever shall affirm that the sacraments of the 
new law were not all instituted by Jesus Christ 
our Lord, or that they are more or fewer than seven, 
to wit, baptism, confirmation, the Eucharist, penance, 
extreme unction, orders, and matrimony, or even that 
any of these seven is not truly and properly 
a sacrament; let him be anathema. And, who- 
ever shall say that intention of doing at least what 
the church does, is not required in ministers when 
they perform and confer the sacraments ; let him 
be anathema." 2 

1 Novae legis septem sunt sacramenta, videlicet, baptismus, 
confirmatio, eucharistia, pcenitentia, extrema nnctio, ordo, et 
matrimonium .... Ha3C omnia sacramenta tribus perficiuntur, 
vidilicet, rebus tamquam materia, verbis tamquam forma, et 
persona ministri conferentis sacramentnm cum intentione fa- 
ciendi quod facit ecclesia: quorum si aliquod desit, non per- 
ficitur sacramentum. Decretum Concil. Florent. 1442. 

2 Si quisdixerit, sacramenta novae legis non fuisse omnia a 
Jesu Christo, Domino nostro, instituta; aut esse plura vel 
pauciora quam septem, videlicet, baptismum, confirmationem, 
eucharistiam, pcenitentiam, extremam unctionem, ordinem, 
et matrimonium; aut etiam aliquod liorum septem non esse 
vere et proprie sacramentum ; anathema sit. Concil Trident, 
Sess. vii, canon 1. Si quis dixerit, in ministris, dum sacra- 
menta conficiunt, et conferunt, non requiri intentionem saltan 
fac i end i quod facit ecclesia; anathema sii. Idem, canon 11, 
1547. 

26 



302 Otf THE EUCHARIST. 

In the Koman Missal, bearing date Oct. 28th, 
1834, and approved by the Archbishop of Balti- 
more, I find the following, " concerning the defects 
occurring in the celebration of Masses." "The 
priest about to celebrate must use all diligence, 
that nothing of those things requisite for the per- 
formance of the sacrament of the Eucharist be 
wanting. But defect may happen, on the part of 
the material to be consecrated, the form to be used, 
and the minister who performs. For whatsoever 
of these is wanting, that is to say, the due material, 
the form with intention, and sacerdotal order in him 
who performs, the sacrament is not made." 

"Of defect of the bread. If the bread be not of 
wheat, or if of wheat, it be mixed with grain of 
another kind in so great quantity, that it remains 
not wheaten bread, or if it be in any other way 
corrupted, the sacrament is not made. 

" Of defect of the tvine. If the wine has become 
very- sour, or putrid, or if it has been expressed 
from sour or unripe grapes, or if so much water is 
mixed with it that it has become corrupt, the sacra- 
ment is not made. 

"Of defects of form. On the part of form, defects 
may happen if any of those things are wanting 
which are required to the integrity of the words in 
the consecration itself. But the words of consecra- 
tion, which are the form of this sacrament, are 
these. For this is my body; and, This is the chalice 
of my Blood of the new and eternal testament ; the 
mystery of faith which ivas shed for you and for 
many for the remission of sins. 

" But if any one should diminish or change aught 
of the form of the consecration of the body and 
blood, and in that change of the words they should 
not signify the same thing, he does not perform the 
sacrament. 

"Of defect of intention. If any one intends not to 
consecrate, but to act deceptively ; also if any hosts 



WORSHIP OF THE SACRAMENT. 303 

remain upon the altar from forgetful n ess, or if any 
part of the wine, or any host lies concealed, when 
he intends only what he sees ; also if he have before 
him eleven hosts and intends to consecrate only 
ten, not determining which ten he intended to con- 
secrate, in these cases he does not consecrate, be- 
cause intention is required." 1 These are the most 
important, though but a few of the defects, liable 
to occur in the celebration of Masses so called. 

Now admitting, for argument sake, that the doc- 
trine of transubstantiation is true, it nevertheless 
follows, from the above-named contingencies, that 
no man can be certain that the change takes place 
in any particular case. For there are several inter- 
vening uncertainties which are perfectly destruc- 
tive of anything like certain knowledge. No host- 
worshiper on earth can tell whether, in the succes- 
sion of ordinations from the days of the Apostles to 
the present time, some consecrator has not wanted 
the requisite intention. Indeed, it is highly prob- 
able that some have wanted this intention ; for it is 

1 Be defectu panis. Si panis non triticens, vel triticens ad- 
mixtus sit granis alterius generis in tanta quantitate ut non 
maneat panis triticens, vel sitalioqui corruptus, non conficitur 
sacramentum. 

Be defectu mni. Si vinum sit factum penitus acetum, vel 
penitus putridum, vel de uvis acerbis, seu non maturis expres- 
sum, vel ei admixtum tantum aquae ut vinum sit corruptum, 
non conficitur sacramentum. 

De defectu form®. Si quis, aliquid diminuerit vel immuta- 
ret de forma consecrationis corporis et sanguinis, et in ipsa 
verborum immutatione, verba idem non significarent, non 
conficeret sacramentum. 

Be defectu intentionis. Si quis non intendit conficere, sed 
delnsorie aliquid agere: item si aliquse hostiso ex oblivione 
remaneant in altari vel aliqua pars vini, vel aliqua hostia 
lateat, cum non intendat, consecrare nisi quas videt : item si 
quis habeat coram se undecim hostias, et intendat consecrare 
solum decern, non determinans, quas decern intendit, in his 
casibus non consecrat, quia requiritur intentio. Vide Missal. 
Rom. pp. 51-55. 



304 ON THE EUCHARIST. 

well known that some of the Romish clergy have 
been infidels, simonists, &c, &c. If such inten- 
tion were ever wanting in any consecrating bishop, 
no present priest can know that he has not received 
his orders through this vitiated succession of ordi- 
nations, coming directly from one destitute of any 
intention of doing what the church intends. " No 
celebrant can evidently know," says G-abriel Biel, 
" that he is a priest, because he cannot evidently 
know that he has been baptized or legitimately 
ordained." 1 And Bellarmine assures us that "No 
man can be certain, by the certainty of faith, that 
he receives a true sacrament ; because it is not per- 
formed without the intention of the minister ; and 
no one can see the intention of another." 2 Hence, 
no man can know, with the certainty of faith, that 
transubstantiation takes place ; and if it does not 
take place, then Christ is not there as an object of 
adoration; and he who worships the non-conse- 
crated wafer, is guilty of idolatry. So that no host- 
worshiper can certainly know, that he does not 
commit an idolatrous act every time he worships the 
Eucharist. 

Besides the defects already enumerated, which 
may confessedly occur in the matter, form and min- 
ister of this sacrament, there are several other 
contingencies which render the perfection of the 
sacrament still more uncertain : for, in solitary 
mass, and in the public processions in which the 
consecrated elements are carried through the streets 
in covered vessels, who can tell whether the bread 
were wheaten, or the wine expressed from sour and 
unripe grapes; or whether the consecrator canoni- 

1 Nullus celebrans, potest evidenter scire, se esse sacerdo- 
tem, quia non potest evidenter scire se fuisse baptizatum, aut 
legitime ordinatum. Gab. Biel, in Epist. Can. Missce. 

2 Sacramentum, non conficiatur sine intentione ministri, et 
intentionem alterius nemo videre possit. Bellarm. lib de Jus- 
tificat. cap. 8. 



WORSHIP OF TIIE SACRAMENT. 305 

cally uttered the words of consecration ? He might, 
indeed, make an essential mistake without the 
knowledge of his attentive, although learned audi- 
tor ; for it is the practice to utter these words in a 
low and indistinct voice. Who then can tell ; for, 
"to err is human/' that his priest does not fre- 
quently err in the utterance of the words of conse- 
cration ? 

Thus, ray Brother, according to your own stand- 
ards, you cannot be certain, as faith requires you 
should be, that you do not worship a piece of bread 
and a cup of wine instead of the adorable Saviour. 
But uncertainty in the things of religion is distress- 
ing, and doubt is damnable. The true worshipers 
who worship the eternal God, are subject to no 
such uncertainty; for, We know what we worship. 
(John, iv: 22.) 

Be assured,- the infinite and all-wise Jehovah has 
not subjected the adoration required by him to such 
a multitude of contingencies; and that the object of 
your worship is thus inseparable from the common 
accidents of earth, and the frailties of our humanity, 
is proof of its terrestrial origin. 

Consider also: "If the consecrated host disap- 
pear either by some accident, or by the wind, or by 
a miracle, or be eaten by some animal, and cannot 
be found, then let another be consecrated." 

"If anything poisonous touch the consecrated 
host, then let the priest consecrate another and 
receive it as directed, and let the former be pre- 
served in a tabernacle in a separate place until the 
species are corrupted, and then let the corrupted 
species be cast into the sacristy. 

"If in winter the blood be frozen in the cup, let 
the cup be wrapped in warm cloths; if this does 
not suffice, let it be put in boiling water near the 
altar till it be melted, not permitting it to enter 
the cup. 

26* 



306 ON THE EUCHARIST. 

_ "If by negligence any of the blood of Christ fall, 
either upon the ground or upon the table, it mast 
be licked up, and the place sufficiently scraped, and 
the scrapings burned, but the ashes must be laid 
up in the sacristy. 

" If the priest vomit the Eucharist, and the species 
appear entire., let them be reverently received, un- 
less nausea be produced ; fur in that case the con- 
secrated species must be carefully separated [from 
the vomit] and laid up in some sacred place until 
they are corrupted, and afterward cast into the 
sacristy ; but if the species do not appear, let the 
vomit be burned and the ashes cast into the 
sacristy." 1 

So then we are taught by your infallible church, 
that the glorified body of our Lord Jesus Christ 
may be blown away by the wind, eaten by a mouse 
or rat, or some other animal, poisoned, frozen and 
thawed, and corrupted! These are doctrines too 
contradictory of plain Scripture and full of ab- 

1 Si hostia consecrata dispareat vel casu aliquo, aut vento, 
ant miraculo, vel ab aliquo animali accepta, et nequeat re- 
peri ; tunc altera consecratur. 

Si aliquod venenatuin contigerit hostiam consecratam, 
tunc alteram consecret, et sumat eo modo quo dictum est; et 
ilia servetur in tabernaculo, in loco separato donee species 
corrumpantur, et corruptee deinde mittantur in sacrarium. 

Si in bieme sanguis congeletur in calice, involvatur calix 
in pannis calefactis, si id non proficerit, ponatur in fervente 
aqua prope altare, dummodo in calicem non intret donee 
liquet! at. 

Si per negligentiam, aliquid de sanguine Christi ceciderit, 
seu quidem super terrain, seu super tabulam, lingua lambatur, 
et locus ipse radatur quantum satis est et abrasio comburatur ; 
cinis vero in sacrarium recondatur. 

Si sacerdos evomet Eucharistiam, si species integrae ay 
pareant, reverenter sumantur, nisi nausea fiat; tunc enim 
species consecratas caute separentur, et in aliquo loco sacro 
reponantur donee corrumpantur, et postea in sacrarium pro- 
jiciantur ; quod si species non appareant, comburatur vomitus ; 
et cineres in sacrarium mittantur. Rom. Missal, ubi sup. cit. 



WORSHIP OF THE SACRAMENT. 3 Of 

surdity, it would seem, to be credited by men of in- 
telligent piety and cultivated reason. And yet this 
little wafer, so corruptible in its nature and subject 
to all the casualties of a morsel of bread, is believed 
to be the Saviour of the world, and adored as 
such ! ! ! 

III. Such adoration being unsustainecl by either 
Scripture or reason, let us examine the records of 
the ancient and primitive church, and see whether 
she divinely worshiped the Eucharist. 

1. I argue that this sacrament was not anciently 
worshiped from the fact, that no one of those writers 
who have given us an account of the manner of 
celebrating the Eucharist in the early Church, has 
made any mention of such practice. 

Justin Martyr, in his Apology, speaks of the 
prayer of consecration, the response of the peojjle, 
the impartation of the bread and wine by the 
deacons to each of those present, the qualification 
of those who are permitted to communicate, and 
the sending abroad of the elements to those not 
present ; but he gives not the least intimation of 
any adoration paid to them. 1 

The Apostolic Constitutions also give us an ac- 
count of the manner in which the ancients con- 
ducted their devotions at the celebration of this sa- 
crament. Here we find the directions for the dea- 
cons to give the word for saluting one another with 
the kiss of peace ; with fan in hand, to drive away 
small animals from coming near the elements ; to 
watch men, women and children, in order to pre- 
vent disorder ; and to bring water, even for wash- 
ing the hands of the priests ; but nothing is said of 
bowing down and worshiping the sacrament. The 
several prayers are given at length ; and instead of 
finding them invoking a perishable morsel of bread 

1 Justin Martyr, Apolog. i. See above, p. 123. 



308 ON THE EUCHARIST. 

and a cup of wine, we find them offering praying 
to God, " who is every where, and present in all 
things: who is not bounded by place, nor grown 
old by time ; who is above all corruption, free from 
all change, and invariable by nature, who dwelleth 
in light inaccessible, the God of Israel." 1 

Cyril of Jerusalem is still more minute, in the 
enumeration of the several parts of worship per- 
formed at the time of communicating, giving his 
newly initiated hearer directions even how to hold 
his hand when he receives the bread ; but he says 
not a word about worshiping any except God him- 
self. 2 

The oldest Liturgies that contain the manner of 
administering the Eucharist, make no mention of 
such supreme worship of this sacrament, either by 
the priest or people, as is now contained in the 
Koman Missal and Ritual; and no such prayer to 
it as that which bears the name of the " Litany of 
the Blessed Sacrament.'' In vain do we look for 
any thing of the kind in these ancient forms. More 
than a thousand years, from the advent of our 
Saviour, had passed, before the Christian world be- 
came sufficiently apostatized from the true faith to 
give countenance to this master-piece of creature 
worship, and allow it to disgrace their books of 
devotion. 

Nor are we now to be required to produce from 
these ancient liturgies a rule against the adoration 
of the Eucharist. It is enough for our affirmation 
that they are silent on this point. We might, with 
equal propriety, be required to produce from them 
a prohibition against worshiping the water of bap- 
tism. The framers of these ancient formula? con- 
templated rather what was done in their service, 

1 Lib. viii, cap. 15. 

2 Vide Cyril, Ierosol. Cateeli. Mystag. v. 



WORSHIP OF THE SACRAMENT. 309 

than what was not to be allowed. They designed 
them more for a rule of positive action, than for a 
law of prohibition. And we can no more be re- 
quired to produce from them a prohibition against 
this kind of worship, than we are to produce, from 
the ritual of any modern church, a law prohibiting 
the worship of beasts, or the invocation of devils. 
But, as silence in the latter is to be taken as proof, 
that no such practices now prevail in Christian 
communities, so the universal silence of the former 
in regard to the worship of the Eucharist, is to be 
taken as a sufficient proof of its non-existence in 
the ancient church, Nay, it must be admitted as a 
general rule, that, in all essential matters, of either 
doctrine or practice, a universal silence is equiva- 
lent to a prohibition ; for it is utterly impossible, 
that the ancient universal church should have be- 
lieved and practiced daily what they never men- 
tioned in their writings. There ought, therefore, 
to be produced a positive injunction, or, at the least, 
an unquestionable example, of a given practice, 
before its prohibition can be demanded. We are 
not left, however, to conjecture what was the proper 
object of worship in the ancient church, when we 
hear them exclaim ; God be merciful to me a sinner, A 
anymore than we are, what is the object of worship 
of the modern Papist, when we hear him cry out 
to the Eucharist; Super substantial bread — chalice 
of benediction — sacrament of piety ; and the like. 
Have mercy on us. 1 

2. Several practices, wherein the ancient Catholic 
church and the modern Romish church differ, go 
to show, that the earlier Christians held the conse- 
crated, elements in less reverence, than the present 
worshipers of the Eucharist do. 

AChrysost. Liturg.. 

1 Litany of the Blessed Sacrament. 



310 ON THE EUCHARIST. 

The ancients allowed private individuals, to take 
a portion of the consecrated elements home with 
them for their own private use. 

Cyprian relates a very strange thing that hap- 
pened to a man and woman who had unduly been 
to the sacrament, and brought some part of it 
home. 1 So also the bishops were accustomed to 
send the Eucharist to distant bishops, as a token of 
friendship and communiou. 2 Eusebius also delivers 
the account, given by Dionysius of Alexandria, of 
one Serapion who had lived an irreproachable life ; 
but, in the weakness of his human nature had been 
induced to perform the heathen sacrifice, in a time 
of persecution. But as he approached his last end, 
he desired his grandchild to run and call a presby- 
ter to come and absolve him. The boy did his 
errand. " But it was night and the presbyter was 
sick." "A small portion of the Eucharist" was, 
however, given to the lad, who was told "to dip it 
in water, and drop it into the old man's mouth;" 
which was faithfully done by the boy, and old Se- 
rapion immediately expired in peace and comfort. 3 

Contrary to ancient usage, your church does not 
allow the laity of her communion to take into his 
hand the element which he receives. The sacred 
emblem, which is believed to be no less than the 
body of the Son of God, is regarded as too holy 
for any one to handle except the divinely pre- 
rogatived clergy. The ancients, on the contrary, 
made the handling of the Eucharist by the com- 
municants the occasion of exhorting them to keep 
those same hands from being defiled with idolatry, 
murder, rapine, and the like. 

Tertullian, reproaching the Christian Statuaries, 
represents the zealous believer as "lamenting that 

'Cyprian de L&psis. 
2 Euseb. Histor. Eccles. lib. v, cap. 24, 3 Idem. 



WORSHIP OF THE SACRAMENT. 311 

a Christian should come from idols into the church, 
from the workshop of the adversary into the house 
of God, and raise to God the Father those hands 
which are the mothers of idols ; with those hands 
to adore without, those things which are worshiped 
against God, and to move to the body of the Lord 
those hands which make bodies for demons." 3 
Ambrose repelled Theodosius from the holy table, 
after the slaughter made by him at Thessalonica, 
with these words: "How wilt thou extend thy 
hands yet dropping with the blood of an unjust 
slaughter ? How with those hands wilt thou receive 
the Lord's most holy body ?" x Nazianzen inquires ; 
"Should not those hands with which thou pain test 
that pensive beauty ^ shudder, when thou extendest 
them to the mystic feast?" Clemens Alexandrinus 
informs us that those "who distributed the Eucha- 
rist, as was the custom, permit each one of the 
people to take his portion." Not long after him, 
Dionysius of the same city, in a letter to Xystus 
Bishop of Borne, makes mention of one of his church 
members who had renounced his heretical baptism, 
and desired to be re-baptized, as having been for 
some time in the habit of "standing at the table, 
and extending his hand to receive the sacred ele- 
ments." 2 And Basil very expressly says: "In the 
church the priest delivers a portion, and the reci- 
pient takes it with all his ability, and so brings it 
with his hand to his own mouth." E These several 



BTertul. de Idolatria, cap 7, p. 107. 

1 Apud Theodoret. Hist. Eccles. lib. v, cap. 19. 
c Greg. Naz. Carmen, lxiii, p. 152. 

D Clem. Alex. Strom, lib. i, cap. 1. 

2 Apud Euseb. Hist. Eccles. lib. vii, cap. 9. 

E Basil. Epist. 289, ad Osesarium Patricium, vol. iii, p. 279. 
Vide et Origen, Horn. 13 in Exod. Cyril, Ieros. Catech. Myst. 
v, et Aug. Cont literas Petil. lib. ii, c. 23. 



312 ON THE EUCHARIST. 

passages are produced, not only as proof of an an- 
cient usage, but also as condemnatory of that degra- 
dation to which the laity of your church are sub- 
jected, by being treated as unfit to handle the 
sacred emblems of their crucified Kedeemer. 

In connection with the foregoing, we may ob- 
serve, that in the ancient church it was the practice 
to administer the cup in glass vessels, which, 
because of the danger from so fragile a material — 
ob periculum quod immineret materia? fragili — is by 
no means allowed in the Komish Church since the 
establishment of transubstantiation. 

"Nothing is richer," says Jerome, "than he who 
carries the body of the Lord in a wicker basket, 
and his blood in glass." 1 

It would be needless to multiply testimonies, 
since it is confessed by Baronius in his notes upon 
the acts of St. Donatus, that " glass chalices seem 
to have been in use from the times of the Apostles." 2 
And he acknowledges that he can find no earlier 
prohibition of this use than that of the Council of 
Khemes, which, he says, was held in the days of 
Charles the Great. The Canon Law enjoins that 
the cup and plate be, if not of gold, at least of sil- 
ver, allowing pewter in cases of great poverty only ; 
forbids the use of brass and copper; and will allow 
no one to celebrate Mass from a wooden or glass 
cup. 3 Such great caution consists well with your 
doctrine and the worship of the sacrament ; but 
had the ancients believed and practiced thus, why 
did they not provide, in like manner, against this 



1 Nihil illo ditius, qui corpus Domini canistro vimineo, 
sanguinem portat in vitro. Hieron., Ep. iv, ad Rustic urn. 

2 A temporibns Apostolornm vitreus calix in usu fuisse vi- 
detur. Notis ad Martyrol. Rom. 

s Nullus autem dellgneo, aut vitreo calicc presumat Missain 
Can+are. Can. ut calix, dist. 1, de Consecr. 






WORSHIP OF THE SACRAMENT. 313 

danger of spilling the adorable element? With 
all their care and veneration for the sacred gifts, 
they are greatly outdone by their professed succes- 
sors at Rome. 

It is difficult to reconcile with the full belief of a 
corporeal presence and the worship of the Eucha- 
rist, the practice of mixing this species with ink in 
writing documents of great importance. According 
to Baronius, about the middle of the seventh cen- 
tury Pope Theodorus dropped some of the sacra- 
mental wine into the ink, and with his own hand 
wrote the deposition of Pyrrhus the Monothelite. 1 
At the fourth Council of Constantinople, A. D. 869, 
the Bishops are said to have subscribed the deposi- 
tion of Photius, Patriarch of Constantinople, " not 
with mere ink, but dipping the pen into the blood 
of the Saviour, they thus deprived him of authority, 
and condemned him and all that had been ordained 
by him." F Also in the same age the agreement 
of peace between Charles the Bald and Bernard, 
Count of Barcelona, was confirmed and signed (be- 
tween the king and count) with the eucharistic 
blood, 2 — sanguine eucharistico. I grant these last 
examples occurred when innovation in the Eucha- 
rist had already made considerable progress, but 
such a use of this element is quite inconsistent with 
the present belief of transubstantiation and that 
supreme worship of the sacrament now given it. 

To the same effect we might notice the uses and 
disposition which were anciently made of the ele- 
ments remaining after communion. By the rule of 
some churches, they were divided among the com- 
municants ; 3 by that of others, they were given to 

1 Vid. Baron, ad An. Dom. 648, sec. 14. 
F Apud Concl. Labbe, torn. 8. 

2 Vide Baluz. notis ad Agobardum. 
8 Theopli., canon 8. 

21 



314 ON THE EUCHARIST. 

innocent children to consume ; l and in the church 
of Jerusalem, in the fifth century, they were 
burnt. 2 Now, had they been host-worshipers, how 
must simple Christians have been scandalized in 
seeing the object of their supreme adoration thus 
treated. "And with what face," says Bingham, 
"could they have objected this to the heathen, that 
they worshiped such things as might be burnt, 
(which is the common argument used by Arnobius, 
Lactantius, Athanasius, and most others,) if they 
themselves had done the same things?" 3 

The modern practice of elevating the Eucharist 
for the purpose of adoration, was unknown to the 
ancients. No one of the Greek Fathers who wrote 
of the ritual of the eucharistic service, makes any 
mention whatever of the elevation of the Eucharist 
for any purpose. And Dallie affirms that he can- 
not find, among all the interpreters of ecclesiastical 
offices in the Latin Church, the mention of any 
kind of elevation before the eleventh age ; which 
was subsequent to the first introduction of transub- 
stantiation. Germanus, patriarch of Constantino- 
ple, first mentions the practice in the Greek Church 
for the purpose of representing "the lifting up of 
Christ upon the cross, his death upon it, and his 
resurrection/' but not for the purpose of adoring 
it. Another reason given for it was, to invite the 
people to partake of it, as we learn from Nicholas 
Gabasilas, who says: "The priest receiving the 
sanctified things, turns to the people, and showing 
them the holy things, invites those who will to 
partake of them." H Hence it appears, that the 

i Concil. Matiscon. ii, canon vi ; et Evagrii, lib. iv, cap. 36. 

2 Hesych. Com. in Levit, lib. ii. 

s Antiquities of the Church, vol. i, p. 806. 

G In Bibliotheca Patrurn, torn. ii. 

11 In Expos. Liturg., apud Biblioth. Patrum, torn, ii 



WORSHIP OF THE SACRAMENT. «UD 

elevation of the Eucharist for the purpose of ador- 
ing it, is an innovation, and most probably pro- 
ceeded from the new doctrine of transubstantiation 
as its legitimate consequence, the practice early fol- 
lowing the adoption of the doctrine. And Bing- 
ham affirms on the authority of Dallie that "the 
first writer that assigns the reason of the elevation 
for adoration is Gulielmus Durantus, who wrote 
his Rationale about the year 1386. So that tran- 
substantiation and adoration of the Eucharist, as 
mother and daughter, came within an age of one 
another." 1 

3. Several objections made by the ancient Chris- 
tians against the heathen objects of worship, are 
incompatible with the adoration of the sacrament. 

The early and most learned Fathers, charged the 
Egyptians and other heathen with the greatest 
folly in worshiping animals which were eaten. 1 
And it was the opinion of a learned author, that 
God made the difference between the clean and 
unclean beast, to prevent this Egyptian and brutish 
folly in the Israelites who lived among them. 
"For this reason," says he, "he calls some animals 
unclean, and others clean, that abominating those 
that are unclean they should not deify them, nor 
worship those that were eaten ; for it is the ex- 
treme of stupidity to worship what is eaten. " J 

If they regarded it as the extreme of stupidity to 
worship and eat the same kind of animal, what 
would these Fathers have said, had the heathen 
worshiped and afterward eaten the same individual 
animal? Most certainly, the ancient Christians 
could not have been guilty of doing essentially the 

1 Antiquities, Book xv, chap, v, sec. 4. 

i («)Origen, contra Celsem, lib. iv. (*) Tatian, Orat. contra 
Gra3cos. < c > Apim bovem adoratis et pascitis. Minut. Octav. 
p. 94. 

J Theodorei, in Quaest. in Gen. 



316 ON THE EUCHARIST. 

same thing they so bitterly condemned in others, 
and which they accounted for only, by a reference 
to the great stupidity of the heathen. 

Had the ancient church worshiped the Eucharist, 
the Christian apologists never could have ridiculed 
the idols of the heathen, as being the work of the 
carver, or the painter, or as being such gods as 
were baked in the furnace of a potter ;* or as being 
gods of brass and silver. 2 Nor could they have in- 
dulged their cutting satire against their impotent 
and senseless deities, because they were liable to be 
stolen by thieves. K "How much more correctly," 
says Minutius, "do mute animals naturally judge 
of your gods, such as mice, swallows, amLeranes ; 
they know that they are senseless, they gnaw them, 
light upon them and sit; and unless you drive 
them away they build their nests in the very mouth 
of your god, and the spiders weave their web upon 
his face." L Had those Christians been believers of 
a real bodily presence, and worshipers of the Eu- 
charist, they never could have employed such bitter 
invectives against the gods of the heathen, without 
having their own argument retorted upon them- 
selves to their entire confusion. And this brings 
us to another consideration. 

The ancient enemies of Christianity never slan- 
dered the doctrine of the Eucharist, nor accused 
the Christians of worshiping this sacrament, which 
they most certainly would have done, had the an- 
cients believed and practised as Romanists now do. 
For "it is well known that the adversaries of Chris- 
tianity took all possible occasions to reproach the 
faith and worship of Christians, and make their 
names odious. Nothing that looked strange and 

1 Amobius, contra Gentes, lib. vi. 2 Minut, Octav. p. 74. 
K Lactant. Institut. lib. ii, c. 4. L Minut. p. 75. 



SACRIFICE OF THE MASS. 31 7 

absurd in either, escaped the notice of such men as 
Celsus and Porphyry, Lacian and Julian, among 
the heathen, and Trypho among the Jews. They 
curiously examined and surveyed what they taught 
and practiced, and whatever they thought to be 
foolish and incredible, they with all their wit and 
cunning, endeavored to expose it. So they did with 
the doctrines of the Trinity, the eternal generation 
of the Son of God, his incarnation, his crucifixion 
especially, and our resurrection. 

Neither were they less prying into the Christian 
mysteries and worship, which they could not be 
ignorant of, there being so many deserters and 
apostates in those times of persecution, who were 
well acquainted with them ; and by threatening and 
fears of torment, if there were any secret things, 
were likely to betray them ; thus Julian the Apos- 
tate, who had been initiated into the- Christian 
mysteries, laughed in particular of their baptism, 
that Christians should fancy a purgation thereby 
from great sins." 

To the reproofs of the Christians they did indeed 
object the worship of Christ, as homage paid to a 
finite creature. 

" If Christians," said Celsus, "should worship no 
other except one God, they would perhaps have a 
valid reason against others. But now they wor- 
ship this man [Christ] who has lately appeared ; 
and nevertheless, they think they commit no offence 
against God, although his servant is worshiped." 1 
Most certainly this learned and bitter enemy of 
Christianity would have objected against the Chris- 
tians, the worship of the Eucharist, had they prac- 
tised it, as an offset to their own idol worship. 
That neither he nor any other ancient infidel did 
so, is to be accounted for only from the presump- 

1 Origen, contra Celsum, lib. viii. 
21* 



318 ON THE EUCHARIST. 

tion, that neither the doctrine of transubstantia- 
tion, nor the worship of the host, was known in 
the Church of God in the early ages. Indeed, soon 
after the Church of Koine set up this kind of wor- 
ship, we find Averroes the Arabian philosopher, in 
the thirteenth century, giving this character of the 
Christians: "That he had found no sect worse or 
more foolish than the Christian. Because they 
divide and devour with their teeth the God which 
they worship." 1 A later historian and traveler re- 
lates, that it was a common reproach with the 
Turks and Mahomedans, to call Christians, God- 
eaters. 2 And in a hook printed at Amsterdam, 
A. D. 1662, among other questions, this is put to 
the Christians ; "If the Host be a God, why does it 
corrupt and grow covered with mould? And why 
is it gnawed by mice?" 3 But why was not this 
kind of taunt always cast into the face of Chris- 
tians ? Was Averroes more sagacious than Celsus, 
Julian, or Lucian, that the former should account 
this a most foolish thing, but the latter never say 
one word about it. Believe it who can — I never. 

4. From several considerations we may further 
learn, that the early church did not worship the 
Eucharist. The Fathers frequently teach that 
none but God is to be invoked in prayer or wor- 
shiped; 4 but they never speak of the Eucharist' as 
being an object of invocation, or as being God, we 

1 Nullam se sectam Christiana deteriorem ant ineptiorem 
reperire. Quern colnnt Deum, dentibus ipsi suis discerpunt 
ac devorant. Apud Dionys. Carthus. in-dist. 4. 

2 Bullaeus Gultius in Itiner. 

3 Si Hostia Deus est cur situ obducta corrumpitur ? Cur S 
gliribus et muribus corroditur ? Lib. Quaest. et Respons. 

4 Vide Justin Martyr. Apol. i. Tertul. ad Scapulam c. 2. 
Origen, contr. Celsum, lib. v, et lib. viii. Cyprian ad Fortunat. 
Athanas. Orat. iii, cont. Arianos ; et alios ubique. 



WORSHIP OF THE SACRAMENT. 319 

therefore legitimately infer, that this sacrament was 
neither invoked nor adored by them. 

Augustine tells us, that Christians adore an in- 
visible God. "But now, brethren, we see not with 
our eyes him whom we adore, and yet we rightly 
adore. Much more is God commended to us as 
a being of power, because we see him not with our 
eyes. If we should see him with our eyes, perhaps 
we should despise him; for the Jews despised 
Christ seen ; the Gentiles have adored him not 
seen." 1 Evidently the object of worship with Au- 
gustine was an invisible God ; but not the visible 
bread and wine of the Eucharist. 

In commenting upon the work written by one 
against Origen's doctrine, that the Holy Ghost 
does not operate upon things inanimate, Jerome 
admired the profit the churches would derive from 
the work; "that they who are ignorant, being in- 
structed by the testimony of Scripture, may learn 
with what veneration they ought to receive holy 
things, and perform the service of the altar ; and 
that the holy cups and holy veils and other things 
that pertain to the worship of the Lord's passion, 
have not a sanctity such as things inanimate and 
wanting of sense, but from their fellowship with 
the body and blood of the Lord, are to be venerated 
with the same majesty with which his body and 
blood are venerated," 2 so that, if the holy cups and 

1 Modd autem fratres, non videmus oculis quern adoramus, 
et tamen correcti adoramus. Multo magis nobis Deus com- 
mend atur potentior, quia- eum non oculis videmus. Si eum 
oculis videremus forte contemneremus. Nam et Christum 
Iudsei visum contempserunt, non visum gentes adoraverunt. 
Aug. Enar. in Psal. xlvi. 

2 Ut discant qui ignorant eruditi testimoniis Scripturarum, 
qua, debeant veneratione sancta suscipere et altaris servitio 
deservire; sacrosque calices et sancta velamina, et castera 
quoe ad cultum pertinent Dominica? Passionis, non quasi in- 
anima et sensu carentia sanctimoniam n.on habere, sed ex con- 



320 ON THE EUCHARIST. 

veils and other furniture are to be worshiped as 
God, then are the eucharistic elements also, but not 
without, Jerome being the judge. And the seventh 
Council of Constantinople declared that "Christ 
commanded to offer as his image a choice material, 
the substance of bread, not to make the form of a 
man ; in order that idolatry might not be intro- 
duced." M If it would be idolatry to worship the 
image of Christ in the Eucharist or elsewhere, were 
it in the shape of a man, it cannot be less idolatry 
to worship that image in "the substance of bread," 
not having the form of man. 

IV. Several passages have been cited from the 
Fathers, with a view to prove the practice of ador- 
ing the sacrament in their time; but they only 
prove, that they approached and received the Eu- 
charist with humility, and reverence, like humble 
worshipers, sorrowing for their sins, and loving and 
honoring the Saviour. 

In his laudatory oration, upon his sister Gorgo- 
nia, Gregory Nazianzen tells, that she being affected 
with disease, and ee rejecting all other remedies, 
fled to the physician of all ; and observing the mid- 
night hour, when her disease remitted a little, she 
cast herself before the altar, with faith, calling 
upon him who was honored upon it with loud cry 
and with all epithets, and reminding him of all 
those mighty deeds before wrought, (for she was 
wise in things both old and new,) she committed a 
certain unbecoming, yet pious and excellent act. 
She imitated the woman whose flow of blood was 
dried up by touching the hem of Christ's garment; 
she put her head upon the altar, with equal cries 
and tears, as one of old washed the feet of Christ, 

sortio corporis et sanguinis Domini, eadem corpus ejus et 
sanguis majestate veneranda. Hieron. Ep. ad Theoph. Alex. 
M Concil. Constanti. vii, act 6. 



WORSHIP OF THE SACRAMENT. 321 

she threatened not to desist before she obtained a 
cure ; then mingling with her tears, marvellous ! 
Whatever of the antitypes of the precious body or 
blood her hand had treasured up, and anointing 
her whole body with this medicine of her own mak- 
ing, she immediately received a cure and departed." 1 
So quick and marvellous was the reputed cure of 
Gorgonia, by means of a eucharistic poultice, of a 
singular disease, as it seemed to the medical men 
of that age, whose skill had been employed to no 
effectual purpose; and for whose cure, the tears of 
her parents, and public prayers and supplications, 
had been unavailingly poured out. By the host 
worshiper, Gorgonia is supposed to have worshiped 
the Saviour under the form of the eucharistic ele- 
ments, as it is said that she "called upon him who 
was honored upon the altar." But it is one thing 
to invoke the Eucharist as God, and another to call 
upon him who is honored by the celebration of this 
sacrament. The former is no less than idolatry, 
the latter, which is here mentioned, is a commend- 
able and Christian act. There is not, in the whole 
passage, the remotest intimation, that the Eucha- 
rist was invoked by Gorgonia. On the contrary, 
the asserted fact of her taking the sacramental em- 
blems which she herself had reserved for private 
use, mixing them with her tears, and applying the 
same as a medicine to her body, is wholly inconsist- 
ent with the belief of a real corporeal presence. 

When we find Chrysostom saying, " Thou seest 
him upon the altar," N we are to understand him as 
speaking figuratively, as does Ambrose when he 
says, that "Stephen being upon earth touched 
Christ in heaven." And when we meet with such 

1 Greg. Naz. Orat. xi, in laudem sororis Gorgonise. 
NInlEp. Cor. x. 
°Ambros. Serm. lvi. 



322 ON THE EUCHABIST. 

an expression as this, "that Christ is worshiped 
upon the altar, 7 ' 1 we are not to understand it as 
meaning that the Eucharist was worshiped there, 
but simply that Christ was worshiped in this sacra- 
mental act of devotion. 

Jerome tells us of some " Christians who went to 
Jerusalem, that they might adore Christ in those 
places in which the Gospel first shone from the 
cross." p He "worshiped him in the grave, and 
Paula worshiped him in the stall." 2 With equal 
propriety may we be said to worship him upon the 
altar., or in the sacraments, without adoring any 
visible representation there employed. 

The Fathers do indeed speak of coming to the 
sacraments in the manner of suppliants and wor- 
shipers^ for the purpose of honoring and adoring 
the Son of God, and offering him a lowly and sub- 
missive heart, but not for worshiping the elements 
used, for they believed them to be, not the real body 
and blood, but the symbolical body and blood of 
Christ. 

It is true, however, without doubt, that some of 
the ancients considered the human body of Christ 
to be an object of adoration, on account of its union 
with his divine nature. Augustine found some dif- 
ficulty in his Latin version of David's words, "Adore 
his footstool;" (Ps. xcix: 5,) and he endeavored to 
reconcile this with the command to worship and 
serve God alone. He says : " I inquire what is his 
footstool ; and the Scripture tells me, The earth is 
my footstool. (Isa. lxvi: 1.) In doubt I turn to 
Christ, because I seek him here ; and I find how 

1 Chrysost. Horn, xxiv, in I Cor. 
p Ep. ad Marcel. 

2 Idem, ad Paul, et Eustoch. 

Q Ohrys. Horn, vii, in Matt. Vide et Cyril, Hierosol. Catecli. 
Mystag. v. 



WORSHIP OF THE SACRAMENT. 323 

without impiety, the earth is adored, without im- 
piety his footstool is adored. For he took earth 
from the earth ; because flesh is from the earth, and 
from the flesh of Mary he took flesh. And since 
he walked about in this flesh, and has given us this 
flesh to be eaten for our salvation ; but no one eats 
this flesh unless he has" first adored [it] ; it is found 
how such a footstool of the Lord is adored, and not 
only do we not sin by adoring, but we sin by not 
adoring." 1 

Referring to the sixth of John he goes on to 
speak of the unprofitableness of a carnal mandu- 
cation; the foolishness of those who understood 
Christ to speak literally in this chapter ; represents 
our Saviour as saying to them, that they should not 
eat his visible body, nor drink that blood which 
was soon to be shed by the spear of the soldiers ; 
and as concluding by exhorting to a spiritual un- 
derstanding of his words, and affirming, that 
although this sacrament is to be visibly celebrated, 
it must be understood invisibly. 2 That the worship 
of the Eucharist is not taught by St. Augustine in 
this passage, I gather from the following considera. 
tions: 1, The flesh of Christ to be adored, is that 
which was born of the Virgin. But our author 

1 Qusero quod sit scabellum pedum ejus ; et dicitmihi Scrip- 
tures : Terra scabellum pedum meorurn. Fluctuans converto me 
ad Christum, quia ipsum qusero hie; et invenio quomodo sine 
impietate adoretur terra, sine impietate adoretur scabellum 
pedum ejus. Suscepit enim de terra terram ; quia caro de 
terra est, et de came Marioe carnem accepit. Et quia in ipsa 
carne hie ambulavit, et ipsam carnem nobis manducandam ad 
salutem dedit; nemo autem illam carmen manducat, nisi prius 
adoraverit; inventum est quemadmodum adoretur tale sca- 
bellum pedum Domini, et non solum non peccemus adorando, 
sed peccemus non adorando. Aug. Enaratio in Psal. xcviii, 
§9. 

2 See the closing part of this paragraph quoted above, 
p. 49. 



324 ON THE EUCHAKIST. 

elsewhere teaches that Christ, "according to his 
bodily presence is now above the heavens at the 
right hand of the Father/'" 1 and therefore not upon 
earth in the sacrament. 2, He condemns the car- 
nal apprehension of Christ's words by those who 
were offended and receded from him, and teaches a 
spiritual and invisible participation of his flesh and 
blood in the Eucharist. 3, He affirms that "no 
one eats this flesh unless he has first adored [it,]" 
which would be untrue if he intended, in the 
Romish sense, the real flesh of Christ in the Eucha- 
rist ; for many ungodly persons, rejecters of Christ's 
divinity, and infidels, who worship not the flesh of 
the Lord in any proper sense, have always partici- 
pated of the sacrament of the Lord's Supper. The 
meaning, therefore, of St. Augustine evidently is, 
that no one eats the flesh of Christ spiritually in 
the Eucharist, unless he be a true believer, and 
has worshiped that Saviour who was born of the 
Virgin. 

More than the words of St. Augustine does the 
language of Theodoeet seem, at first sight, to favor 
the worship of the Eucharist, where he says: "The 
mystic symbols are understood to be what they are 
made, and are believed and venerated as being 
those things which they are believed to be." 2 The 
word we here render by the term venerate is the 
same as that which is commonly translated by the 
word adore. That this author does here mean ven- 
eration and not worship or adoration, in our accepta- 
tion of the term, is plain from the. fact, that he did 
not believe the bread and wine to pass out of their 
former and proper substance, as the connection ex- 
pressly declares. He means, therefore, that the 
elements are understood to be the sacramental 

1 Idem, Serm. cxx, de Diversis. See also above, p. 220. 

2 Theodoret, Dial. ii. 



WORSHIP OF THE SACRAMENT. 325 

body and blood which they are made by consecra- 
tion, and are reverenced as such. 

2. The Greek irpotfxyvijtfis and its corresponding 
Latin adoratio do not, when applied to creatures 
signify, among the ancient writers, that highest 
degree of religious worship which is now affirmed 
to belong to the Eucharist. 

"It is one thing to adore, and another to serve," 
[*. e. worship supremely,] says Origen; "For he 
who serves idols with his whole soul, not only 
adores, but he also worships them. And he who 
acts hypocritically because of the heathen, does not 
worship, although he adores them." R 

Again he says: "The abjurers of Christianity, 
at or before the tribunal, do not indeed worship, 
but they adore idols, taking the name of the Lord 
God in a vain and lifeless matter. And thus the 
people, who were denied with the daughters of 
Moab, adored their idols, but did not worship them ; 
therefore it is written in these words, that they called 
them to the sacrifices of their idols, and the people ate 
of their sacrifices, and they adored their idols, and Is- 
rael was initiated to Baalpeor. Observe, it is not said, 
And they worshiped their idols, for it was not possible, 
after such signs and wonders, that, in one moment 
of time, they would be persuaded by the women 
with whom they committed whoredom to think 
their idols were gods." s Also Cyril of Alexandria 
makes "adoration, as it were, the gate and way 
unto acts of worship, being the beginning of the 
service of God." T From which we may infer that 
the ancients did not generally use the term wpo<rxuvv]- 
<s\g to express the supreme worship of God from the 
heart, but rather to indicate that kind of venera- 

R Orig. Horn, viii, in Exod., No. 4. 
s Idem, Exhortatio ad Marty riiim, Op. vol. i, p. 277. 
T Cyril, Alex., Com. in Joan, iv : 22, lib. ii, cap. 5. 
28 



326 ON THE EUCHARIST. 

tioii expressed by external acts, and introductory 
to full and true worship. And when it is applied 
to sensible objects it expresses only that reverence 
which belongs to things esteemed sacred. Accord- 
ingly Constantine, in his Letter addressed to the 
bishops assembled at the Council of Ariminum, 
calls the law divine and -rrpotfx&vigTou; l Isidore of Pelu- 
sium calls the tomb of Christ tpotixwovpsvov; 2 Leo II 
calls Borne the Apostolic throne tfpotfxuv7]<rov; 3 and 
Justinian affirms the same of baptism. 4 

By this word the Seventy translate the Hebrew, 
shachah, which means to stoop or how down. Abra- 
ham bowed down, ^poo'sxuvirjo'sv, to the three angels in 
the plain of Mamre. (G-en. xviii : 2.) Lot performed 
the same act to the two angels at the gate of Sodom, 
(ch. xix: 1.) Jacob bowed down seven times to 
the ground to his brother Isaac, (ch. xxx : 3 ;) and 
Joseph's brethren bowed down to him. (ch. xlii : 6.) 
In these and other cases of the same character, too 
numerous to mention, civil respect to others, a 
deference to those superior in rank or circumstance, 
or a veneration for what is deemed sacred, is all 
that is intended. The application of this term, 
therefore, to the Eucharist, does, by no means, 
prove that the ancients worshiped this sacrament. 

V. The abettors of transubstantiation and the 
worship of the sacrament, consistently with their 
doctrine and practice, argue a continued and per- 
petual succession of miracles in the Eucharist. Mr. 
Hughes says : " Of all the wonders operated by 
Jesus in the institution of his religion, the only one 
which a mere creature deputed by God could not 
accomplish, is that which subsists in the real pres- 

1 Apud Athanas., torn, i, part 2, p. 768. 

2 Isidor. Pelus. Epist., lib. iv, No. 27. 

3 Concil. sub Menna, Act. 5. 

4 Justinian, Novell, vi. 






WORSHIP OF THE SACRAMENT. 327 

ence, in the Eucharist. This doctrine then is the 
shield of his divinity. He might have accomplished 
all the miracles that Protestants believe of him, 
and yet be nothing more than what Socinians repre- 
sent ; but to accomplish the miracle which we con- 
template, not with the eye of the body, but with 
the eye of faith, in the mystery of the holy Eucha- 
rist, he must have been God. To creatures deputed 
by God some poiver was given, but to Christ all 
power both in heaven and on earth ; and it was in 
the Eucharist alone that this ALL power was exer- 
cised." 1 Of the operation of such miracles, I find 
nothing among the ancient writers. Although 
some of them, in their rhetorical discourses, give 
glowing descriptions of the efficacy of the sacra- 
ments, by reason of the wondrous accession of divine 
grace, yet they do not speak of this as a miracle of 
power above and distinct from all other operations 
of the Godhead. At most, they regarded it as a 
miracle of grace. 

On the other hand, Chrysostom argues the benefit 
of the discontinuance of miracles in the Church on 
the ground, that a in proportion as things are more 
evident and effectual in producing assent, in the 
same proportion is faith lessened, for this cause 
miracles are now discontinued ; . . . . and therefore, 
by as much as a more evident miracle is set forth, 
by so much is the reward of faith lessened ; so that 
if miracles were now to take place the same thing 
would follow." u That is, a lessening of the power 
and reward of faith. 

Yours, in the true worship of God, 

E. 0. P. 



1 Controversy, No. 27, p. 220. 

u Chrysost. in I Cor. Horn, vi, § 3, torn, x, p. 53. 



LETTEK XVII 

RISE, PROGRESS, AND ESTABLISHMENT OF THE DOCTRINE 
OF TRANSUBSTANTIATION. 

Dear Brother: — The assertion, that the doctrine 
of transubstantiation was not a doctrine of the 
early church, having been discussed at some length, 
and shown to be true, it only remains for me now 
to consider briefly the history of this dogma of your 
church. 

On your side, "the impossibility of any change 
ever having taken place in the doctrine of the 
church, upon the subject of the real presence and 
transubstantiation/' is argued from the asserted 
"fact;" "that no formal protest or opposition of 
whatever kind, was ever made by any part of the 
church, or any body of Christians during that, or 
any other period, when the change is said to have 
taken place ; excepting John 8cotus, a man of very 
little repute for soundness of judgment, who had 
no followers, his error on the Eucharist broached 
toward the middle, expiring with him before the 
end of the ninth century; also excepting Beren- 
garius, arch-deacon of Angers, two hundred years 
after, whose error was condemned by all the learned 
men of that period, and condemned in many coun- 
cils ; and he himself died a sincere penitent A. D. 
1088." In view of this representation you ask; 
"Would all Christians without exception and in a 
short time, have divested themselves of their natu- 
ral and religious feelings, to admit a new doctrine, 
the most opposed to the senses and imagination 
that can be conceived? Would they have admitted 



RISE, PROGRESS AND ESTABLISHMENT. 329 

it as a part of the divine revelation given by Christ 
to his Church, whilst it was to their own know- 
ledge a mere novelty, and not a word had been 
heard of it before? Would they have adopted it 
without difficulty, without trouble, without opposi- 
tion and protestation, as must be supposed in this 
case, since nothing of the kind can be discovered 
to have taken place in those times? And whilst 
the author, the rise and the progress of every 
heresy, even on much less important points, have 
been carefully noticed in every age, here on the 
contrary, by a strange reversal of the moral laws 
which govern mankind, both the fact and the cir- 
cumstances of the supposed change of doctrine, 
were immediately buried in perfect oblivion." 
This argumentation proceeds, first, upon the as- 
sumption that Protestants affirm a sudden change, 
throughout Christendom, of the doctrine of the 
Eucharist; whereas, they affirm no such thing; 
and secondly, upon the assertion of what we sup- 
pose to be historically untrue ; namely, that Scotus 
in the ninth century was alone in his belief, and in 
his opposition to the doctrine of a physical change; 
that Berengarius died a sincere penitent, as repre- 
sented, for opposing such a change; that no im- 
portant opposition was made to transubstantiation 
before the Reformation. Were both the assump- 
tion and the assertion true, the reasoning which is 
based upon them would have weight; but should 
they be proved false, then the argument falls with 
the foundation upon which it rests. 

It is supposed to be impossible that a change in 
the doctrine of the Eucharist should have occurred, 
without producing agitation in the church like that 
excited by the Arian, Pelagian and other heresies. 
This would be true, without doubt, were the change 
in dispute sudden as those more ancient errors, and 
proposed in as healthful and intelligent a state of 
,28* 



330 ON THE EUCHARIST. 

Christian society. But, that the Christian Church 
during the middle ages, was in a condition highly 
favorable to the introduction, progress and ulti- 
mate establishment of a change of the doctrine of 
this sacrament, will appear from the following con- 
siderations. 

1. The Christian world was, for the most part, 
in a state of profound ignorance. "For many cen- 
turies," says Hallam, "to sum up the account of 
ignorance in a word, it was rare for a layman of 
whatever rank to know how to sign his name. 
Their charters, till the use of seals became general, 
were subscribed with the mark of the cross. Still 
more extraordinary it was to find one who had any 
tincture of learning." The Emperor Frederick 
Barbarossa could not read, nor John, King of Bo- 
hemia, in the middle of the fourteenth century, nor 
Philip the Hardy, King of France, although the 
son of St. Louis. With some honorable exceptions, 
"even the clergy were, for a long period, not very 
materially superior, as a body, to the uninstructed 
laity. An inconceivable cloud of ignorance over- 
spread the whole face of the church, hardly broken 
by a few glimmering lights, who owe almost the 
whole of their distinction to the surrounding dark- 
ness Of this prevailing ignorance it is easy to 

produce abundant testimony. Contracts were made 
verbally, for want of notaries capable of drawing 
up charters; and these, when written, were fre- 
quently barbarous and un grammatical to an in- 
credible degree. For some considerable intervals 
scarcely any monument of literature has been pre- 
served, except a few jejune chronicles, the vilest 
legends of saints, or verses equally destitute of 
spirit and metre. In almost every Council the 
ignorance of the clergy forms a subject for reproach. 
It is asserted, by one held in 992, that scarcely a 
single person was to be found in Kome itself, who 



RISE, TIIOGRESS AND ESTABLISHMENT. 331 

knew the first elements of letters. Not one priest 
of a thousand in Spain, ahout the age of Charle- 
magne, could address a common letter of salutation 
to another. In England, Alfred declares that he 
could not recollect a single priest south of the 
Thames (the most civilized part of England) at the 
time of his accession, who understood the ordinary 
prayer or could translate Latin into his mother 
tongue." 1 

2. Immorality kept pace with ignorance and ex- 
tended to both clergy and laity, as a few passages 
from Mosheim will show. "That those who in this 
(eighth) age had the care of the church, both in 
the East and in the West, were of very corrupt 
morals is abundantly testified. The Oriental bishops 
and doctors wasted their lives in various contro- 
versies and quarrels, and disregarding the cause of 
religion and piety, they disquieted the State with 
their senseless clamors and seditions. Nor did 
they hesitate to imbrue their hands in the blood of 
their dissenting brethren. Those in the West who 
pretended to be luminaries, gave themselves up 
wholly to various kinds of profligacy, to gluttony, 
to hunting, to lust, to sensuality, and to war. Nor 
could they in any way be reclaimed, although Car- 
loman, Pepin, and especially Charlemagne, enacted 
various laws against their vices." "The true re- 
ligion of Jesus Christ, if we except the few doctrines 
contained in the Creed, was wholly unknown in this 
age, even to the teachers of the highest rank; and 
all orders of society, from the highest to the lowest, 
neglecting the duties of true piety and the renova- 
tion of the heart, fearlessly gave themselves up to 
every vice and crime." 2 

i View of the Middle Ages, pp. 459,400. 

2 See Moslieim's Eccles. Hist. Cent, viii, ix, x, xi, and fol- 
lowing 



332 ON THE EUCHARIST. 

The same is true of succeeding centuries, as 
credible historians testify. Kancor, strife, sedition, 
rapine and murder ; indulgence, lust, licentiousness 
and debauchery; fraud, perjury and simony are the 
terms by which the faithful historian is compelled 
to designate the common vices of those ages of 
mental darkness and moral depravity. 

Such a state of immorality and general ignorance 
of the practical doctrines of Christianity, could not 
be otherwise than highly favorable to the production 
and growth of any error, however unreasonable or 
absurd. But while men slept, his enemy came and 
sowed tares among the wheat, and went his way. 
(Matt, xiii : 25.) " Ignorance and immorality," says 
Edgar, " are the parents of error and superstition. 
The mind void of information, and the heart desti- 
tute of sanctity, are prepared to embrace any fabri- 
cation or absurdity. Such was the mingled mass 
of darkness, depravity, and superstition which pro- 
duced the portentous monster of transubstantiation." 
(Var. p. 369.) 

3. Of all the superstitions which contributed to the 
establishment of this doctrine, an undue reverence 
for the clergy, and the belief of perpetual miracles, 
were perhaps foremost. After the first passage 
above cited, Mosheim adds : "Although these vices 
of the persons who ought to have been examples 
for others, were exceedingly offensive to all, and 
gave occasion to various complaints ; yet they did 
not prevent the persons defiled with them, from 
being every where held in the highest honor, and 
being adored as a sort of deities by the vulgar." 1 
It is but fair to assume that men of such character, 
would naturally foster the reverence paid them by 
the multitude, and encourage any belief which might 
serve their personal aggrandizement. Nothing 

1 Cent, viii, Part ii, c. 2. 



RISE, PROGRESS AND ESTABLISHMENT. 333 

.could do tins more effectually, than the belief of 
the doctrine of transubstantiation. Let the mind 
once be persuaded of the truth of this dogma, and 
the necessary mediation of the priest, and it is pre- 
pared to award to such agency the honors of some- 
thing like a god-like superiority. This is not mere 
theory. 

"The hands of the pontiff," said Urban, in a 
great Roman Council, "are raised to an eminence 
granted to none of the angels, of creating God the 
Creator of all things, and of offering him up for 
the salvation of the whole world." " This preroga- 
tive," adds the same authority, "as it elevates the 
Pope above angels, renders pontifical submission 
to kings an execration. To this the Synod replied, 
Amen." 1 

Cardinal Biel extends this power to all priests. 
"He who created me," says he, "if it be lawful to 
say it, has given to me to create himself; and he 
who created me without me, is created by my me- 
diation." He makes a comparison by which he 
exalts the clergy even above the Virgin ; and ex- 
claims: " Consider, ye priests, in what rank and 
dignity ye are placed." 2 

It is the profession of thk extraordinary power, 
in making and conferring the sacraments of the 
Church, that has done more than anything else to 
elevate in the minds of the masses the importance 
of the sacerdotal office. Even at the present day, 
the priestly professor of this tremendous power is 



i Dicens, nimis execrabile videri, ut maims, quae in tantam 
eminentiam excreverunt, quod nulli angelorumconcessum est, 
ut Deum cuncta creantem suo signaculo creent, et eundem 
ipsumpro salute totius mundi, Dei Patris obtutibus offerant. 
Et ab omnibus acclamatum est, Fiat, fiat. Hoveden, ad Ann. 
1099, p. 268. See Dowling, p. 203. 

2 Canon Miss. Lect. 4. See above, p. 200. 



334 ON THE EUCHARIST. 

viewed by the simple believer of transubstantiation 
as having ability to open and shut the portals of 
heaven ; nay, to unbar the iron gates of purga- 
torial dungeons, and, by the means of masses said 
for the dead, wrest from the hands of the prince of 
darkness his tormented victims. The influence of 
such professions upon the untaught minds of the 
darker ages, may be easily understood. And the 
readiness with which a doctrine encouraging such 
prerogatives, would be admitted by men aspiring 
to the highest possible earthly influence and power, 
is easily accounted for. In view, therefore, of the 
ignorance of all, and the immorality and ambitious 
designs of the clergy of former ages, we may cease 
to wonder at the introduction of this most strange 
of all human opinions. 

4. The importance to the authority of the clergy, 
which must have been early attached to this dog- 
ma, may be gathered from the persecuting mea- 
sures adopted by the Romish priests, in order to 
silence those who dared to call it in question. A 
few examples from English history : Thomas Badby, 
a layman, was arraigned A. D. 1409, before the 
Bishop of Worcester, and convicted of heresy. On 
his examination he said, that it was impossible any 
priest could make the body of Christ sacramentally, 
nor would he believe it, unless he saw, manifestly, 
the corporeal body of the Lord to be handled by 
the priest at the altar ; that it was ridiculous to 
imagine that at the supper Christ held in his own 
hand his own body, and divided it among his disci- 
ples, and yet remained whole. " I believe/' said 
he, " the omnipotent God in trinity ; but if every 
consecrated host at the altars be Christ's body, 
there must then be in England no less than twenty 
thousand gods." .... "When the king had signed 
the warrant for his death, he was brought to Smith- 
field, and there being put in an empty tun, was 



RISE, PROGRESS AND ESTABLISHMENT. 335 

bound with iron chains, fastened to a stake, and 

Lad dry wood piled around him The prior 

of St. Bartholomew's, in Smithfield, brought, 
with all solemnity, the sacrament of God's body, 
with twelve torches borne before, and showed the 
sacrament to the poor man at the stake. And then 
they demanded of him how he believed in it; he 
answered, that he knew well it was hallowed bread, 
but not God's body. And then was the tun put 
over him, and fire put unto him, .... till his 
body was reduced to ashes, and his soul rose tri- 
umphant to him who gave it." 

Anne Askew testifies : "But this is the heresy 
which they report me to hold, that after the priest 
hath spoken the words of consecration, there re- 
maineth bread still. They both say, and also teach 
it for a necessary article of faith, that after these 
words be spoken, there remaineth no bread, but 
even the self-same body that hung upon the cross 
on Good Friday, both flesh, blood, and bone. To 
this belief of theirs say I, Nay. For then were our 
common creed false, which saith, that he sitteth on 
the right hand of God the Father Almighty, and 
from thence shall come to judge the quick and the 
dead. Lo, this is the heresy that I hold, and for it 
must suffer death." With three others she was 
chained to the stake and suffered the death of an 
unyielding martyr in the midst of the flames. 
"One B-ainham was seized and condemned for 
having said that Thomas Becket was a murderer, 
and damned if he did not repent ;• and that in the 
sacrament, Christ's body was received by faith, and 
not chewed with the teeth. Sentence was passed 
upon him and he was burnt." 

"Frith was a young man much famed for his 
learning; and was the first who wrote in England 
against the corporeal presence in the sacrament, 
lie followed the doctrine of Zuinglius. For his 



336 ON THE EUCHARIST. 

opinions he was seized in May, 1533, and brought 
before Stokesly, Gardiner, and Longland. They 
charged him with not believing in purgatory and 
transubstantiation." He was brought to the stake 
at Smithfield the fifth of July following; he 
"hugged the faggots with transport," and expired 
in the triumphs of faith. 1 

For opposing the doctrine of a corporeal presence, 
and other papal errors, WicklifF became the object 
of frequent persecution by the clergy, and would 
doubtless have fallen a victim to their exterminat- 
ing violence, had he not been supported by the 
Duke of Lancaster and other powerful friends. 
But his grave did not protect him from the vandal- 
ism of the age. 

Thirty years after his death, the Synod of Con- 
stance ordered his bones to be exhumed and re- 
duced to ashes. This decree was subsequently 
executed, and his ashes are said to have been 
thrown into the river Swift at Lutterworth. " From 
thence," says Bonnechose, "to adopt the striking 
expression of Fuller, his remains were successively 
borne into the Severn, St. George's Channel, and 
the Atlantic, .... a veritable emblem of his doc- 
trines, which were diffused from his province 
throughout the whole nation, and from his nation 
throughout all the kingdoms of the earth." 2 

From these specimens of papal persecution, we 
may infer, that the doctrine of transubstantiation 
has a very important connection with the authority 
of the Church of Rome. For it is well known that 
when her favorite auxiliaries, the dungeon, sword, 
and flame, have been employed, it has been to 
guard those doctrines which look to the perpetua- 
tion of her supremacy over the mind and conscience 

1 See Fox's Book of Martyrs, by Goodrich. 

2 Reformers before the Reformation, chap. vi. 



of mankind. And as none of her dogmas has a 
more direct tendency to support her spiritual 
authority, than that of transubstantiation, its in- 
troduction and progress, in those ages when spirit- 
ual despotism and worldly ambition possessed the 
whole soul of priestly aspirants, is most satisfac- 
torily accounted for. 

5. The superstitious belief of false miracles in 
those dark ages, was highly favorable to the pro- 
gress and establishment of this doctrine. 

"Successive ages of ignorance swelled the delu- 
sion to such an enormous pitch," says Hallam, 
"that it was as difficult to trace, we may say with- 
out exaggeration, the real religion of the Gospel 
in the popular belief of the laity, as the real history 
of Charlemagne in the romance of Turpin. It 
must not be supposed that these absurdities were 
produced, as well as nourished, by ignorance. In 
most cases they were the work of deliberate impos- 
ture." 1 A single example will suffice to illustrate 
both the credulity and imposition of the times. A 
man whose occupation was highway robbery, was 
careful to address a prayer to the Virgin, whenever 
he set out on a predatory expedition. "Taken at 
last, he was sentenced to be hanged. While the 
cord was round his neck he made his usual prayer, 
nor was it ineffectual. The Virgin supported his 
feet 'with her white hands,' and thus kept him 
alive two days, to the no small surprise of the 
executioner, who attempted to complete his work 
with a stroke of a sword. But the same invisible 
hand turned aside the weapon, and the executioner 
was compelled to release his victim, acknowledging 
the miracle." 1 This miracle was reported in proof 
of the orthodoxy of the worship of the Virgin. The 
corporeal presence and worship of the host, have 

1 Middle Ages, p. 465. 
29 



338 ON THE EUCHARIST. 

also been dignified by similar miraculous interpo- 
sitions. 

Petrus Cluniac, lib. 1, cap. 1, reports, "that a 
certain peasant of Auvergne, a province in France, 
perceiving that his bees were likely to die, to pre- 
vent the misfortune, was advised, after he had 
received the communion, to keep the host, and to 
blow it into one of his hives ; and, on a sudden, all 
the bees came forth out of their hives, and ranking 
themselves in good order, lifted up the host from 
the ground, and carrying it in upon their wings, 
placed it among the combs ! After this the man 
went out about his business, and at his return, 
found that this advice had succeeded contrary to 
his expectation; for all his bees were dead. Nay, 
when he lifted up the hive, he saw that the host 

was TURNED INTO A FAIR CHILD AMONG THE HONEY 

combs; and being much astonished at this change, 
and seeing that this infant seemed to be dead, he 
took it in. his hands, intending to bury it privately 
in the church ; but when he came to do it, he found 
nothing in his hands, for the infant had vanished 
away." 

Nicholas de Laghi, in his book of the miracles 
of the holy sacrament, says, "that a Jew, blasphem- 
ing the holy sacrament, dared to say, that if the 
Christians would give it to his dog, he would eat it 
up, without showing any respect to their God. 
The Christians being very angry at this outrageous 
speech, and trusting in the Divine Providence, had 
a mind to bring it to a trial ; so, spreading a nap- 
kin on the table they laid on many hosts, among 
which one only was consecrated. The hungry dog 
being put upon the same table, began to eat them 
all ; but coming to that which had been consecrated, 
without touching it, he kneeled down before it, and 
afterwards fell with rage upon his master, catching 
him so closely by the nose, that he took it quite 






RISE, PROGRESS AND ESTABLISHMENT. 339 

away with his teeth." The same which St. Mat- 
thew warns such like blasphemers, saying "Give 
not that which is holy unto dogs, lest they turn 
again and rend you." From other accounts we 
learn that bees, acknowledging their God in the 
sacrament, erected to him a little chapel of wax, 
with its doors, windows, bells, and vestry ; and 
within it a chalice where they laid the holy body 
of Jesus Christ ; and of asses falling upon their 
knees and adoring the sacrament when carried by 
a priest. Indeed, no less than seventy-three pre- 
tended miracles of reverencing the consecrated 
host by animals are contained in Father Toussain's 
collection. Such were the impostures practiced by 
artful monks and priests, in order to establish the 
popular belief in transubstantiation. "Some of 
them attested upon oath, swearing by their sacred 
vestments, that they had seen the blood trickle in 
drops, as it does from a human body, from the con- 
secrated wafer held in the hands of the priests; and 
others, that they had received still more ocular 
demonstration of the reality of the change of the 
bread into the body of Christ, inasmuch as they 
had actually seen it thus changed into the Saviour 
himself, sitting in the form of a little boy tcpon the 
altar y l 

We conclude therefore, that, so far from a change 
in the doctrine of the Eucharist being morally im- 
possible, as asserted by you and others, the igno- 
rance and credulity of the masses, and the immo- 
rality and fraudulent practices, the ambition and 
spiritual despotism of the clergy of the dark ages, 
rendered such a change as we affirm comparatively 
easy with the multitude. 

II. Let us see whether there are traces of a 
change in the doctrine of this sacrament. 

1 See Dowling's History of Romanism, pp. 198, 199. 



340 ON THE EUCHARIST 

That the ancient Fathers did not believe the 
dogma of transubstantiation, has been fully proved 
in former communications. Quite early, however, 
the sacraments were abused, by being exalted to 
an undue proportion in the Christian system. In- 
stead of soberly explaining the figurative language 
of Scripture, writers of a warm imagination were 
inclined to go even beyond the original. 

And when once an opinion had taken root that 
seemed to exalt the sacraments, it easily grew and 
spread; and the more so as enlightened piety 
gradually sank into the shadows of superstition 
and ignorance. Let the pious Christian compare 
the condition of the Christian Church in the days 
of the Apostles, with that which followed in subse- 
quent ages, as delineated in the writings of the 
Fathers, and he will pass from the investigation, 
grieved that a formal ritualism, a cold and lifeless 
sacramentarianism, should so soon have taken the 
place of vital godliness. Accordingly, we find the 
Fathers sometimes employing expressions which, 
taken by themselves, were easily accommodated to 
favor, in after times, the doctrine of a physical 
change of the elements. Thus, Justin Martyr says: 
"We do not receive these as common bread and 
common drink, but as our Saviour Jesus Christ, 
■who was made flesh by the word of God, took flesh 
and blood for our salvation, so also, we have been 
taught that the food which has been blessed by the 
prayer of his word, and by which our flesh and 
blood are nourished in the change, is the flesh and 
blood of that Jesus who was made flesh." ! 

In a later age, Cyril of Jerusalem says: "When 
Christ affirms and says of the bread, This is my 
body, who will henceforth dare hesitate? And 
when he confirms and says, This is my blood, who 

1 Justin Martyr, Apol. i. 



RISE, PROGRESS AND ESTABLISHMENT. 341 

then will doubt, saving that is not his blood? 
Water he once changed into wine by his nod, in 
Cana of Galilee, and is he not worthy of belief 
when he changes wine into blood? Being called 
to a corporeal marriage he wrought that wonderful 
miracle, and shall he not much more be confessed 
by the sons of the bridegroom when he gives the 
fruition of his body and blood?" 1 Cyril does not 
here compare the one change to the other, but he 
argues from the energy of Christ to perform mira- 
cles transcending human power, his ability to 
change the bread and wine into his body and blood, 
by the addition of spiritual grace to these elements. 
This he considered a less exhibition of his power 
than that employed at Cana of Galilee, which illy 
agrees with tran substantiation. For the terms 
much more show, that he argues from the greater 
to the less. So that his argument is, If Christ 
wrought that greater miracle at Cana, much more 
can he operate this change of the elements into his 
body and blood, which requires a less exercise of 
divine power. Indeed this reasoning of Cyril is 
fatal to transubstantiation ; for its advocates, as we 
have seen, rightly place this, according to their 
theorv, at the head of all the miracles operated by 
Christ 

2. But the doctrine of a physical change appears 
to have been first suggested by the heresy of Eu- 
tyches, who believed that in Christ there was but 
one nature, that of the incarnate word; and that 
the human nature was changed into the substance 
of the divine nature. 

Availing himself of the phraseology of the an- 
cient liturgies, though abundantly explained as to 
their real meaning, he made this the premises of 
his doctrines, which is well expressed by Theodoret 

1 Cyril, Hicrosol. Catecli., Mystagog. iv. 



342 ON THE EUCHARIST. 

in the following argument of his Eranistes, the 
spokesman for the doctrine of Eutyches. "As then 
the symbols of Christ's body and blood are one 
thing before the invocation of the priest, but after 
the invocation, are changed and become something 
else ; so the body of the Lord, after his assumption, 
is changed into the divine essence." ! The heresy 
of Eutyches was met by Theodoret and Pope Gela- 
sius in the fifth century, and hj Ephrem of Antioch 
in the sixth. And the intimation in this passage 
by Eranistes of a physical change in the bread and 
wine, is immediately denied by Orthodoxus, the 
spokesman for the Catholic doctrine of that age. 

3. The learned Tillotson observes, that "The 
doctrine of the corporeal presence of Christ in the 
Eucharist, was first started upon occasion of a dis- 
pute about the worship of images: in opposition 
whereto, the Synod of Constantinople, about the 
year 750, did argue thus: ' That our Lord having 
left no other image of himself but the sacrament, 
in which the substance of bread, &c, is the image 
of his body, we ought to make no other image of 
our Lord/ But the Council of Nice, in 787, being 
resolved to support the image worship, did on the 
contrary declare that the sacrament, after conse- 
cration, is not the image and antitype of Christ's 
body and blood, but is properly his body and 
blood." 2 So that the doctrine of the corporeal 
presence in the sacrament, was first introduced to 
support image worship. This refers to the intro- 
duction of the doctrine into the Greek Church. 
Still, however, though the doctrine received the 
sanction of a general council, and that, too, in di- 
rect contradiction of another general council, it was 
in a rude and undigested state. 

1 Theodoret, Dial. ii. 

2 Tillotson on Transubstantiation, Serm. xxvi. 



RISE, PROGRESS AND ESTABLISHMENT. 343 

4. In the ninth century, a warm controversy 
arose among the Latins respecting the manner in 
which the body and blood of Christ are present in 
the sacred supper. On this point the sentiments 
of Christians were various and contradictory; 
nor had any council prescribed a definite faith 
on the subject. Both reason and folly were hith- 
erto left free in this matter, nor had any impe- 
rious mode of faith suspended the exercise of 
the one, or restrained the extravagance of the 
other. 

But in the year 831, Paschasius Radbert, a Bene- 
dictine monk, and afterwards abbot of Corby, pub- 
lished a treatise "Concerning the Body and Blood 
of the Lord," which he presented enlarged and 
improved to the Emperor, Charles the Bold, in the 
year 845. The doctrine advanced by Paschasius, 
may be expressed by the two propositions follow- 
ing : First, That after the consecration of the bread 
and wine in the Lord's supper, nothing remained 
of these elements but the outward figure, under 
which the body and blood of Christ were locally 
present. Secondly, That the body and blood of 
Christ, thus present in the Eucharist, was the same 
body that was born of the Virgin, suffered on the 
cross, and was raised from the dead. This new 
doctrine, especially the second proposition, excited 
the astonishment of many, and gave rise to a great 
dispute. This doctrine was opposed by Rabanus 
Maurus, Heribald, and others, though not in the 
same manner, nor upon the same grounds. The 
Emperor Charles the Bold ordered Bertram and 
John Scotus, two men of distinguished learning 
and talent, to give a true exposition of that doc- 
trine which Paschasius had corrupted. Though 
the views of Bertram are somewhat confused, yet 
the following passages, erased from his work by 



344 ON THE EUCHARIST. 

the papal censors of the sixteenth century, 1 plainly 
shows that he was no transubstantiationist. "It 
must also he considered/' says he, "that in this 
bread is figured not only the body of Christ, but also 
the body of the people who believe in him. And 
hence it is that it is made up of many grains of wheat ; 
because the whole body of believing people is united 
together, and made into one by the word of Christ. 
And therefore, as it is by a mystery that we receive 
this bread for the body of Christ, in like manner 
it is by a mystery also, that the members of the 
people believing in Christ are intimated. And as 
this bread is called the body of believers, not cor- 
poreally but spiritually, so also the body of Christ 
must be understood, not corporeally but spiritually. 
So also is it in the wine, which is called the blood 
of Christ, and with which it is commanded that 
water be mixed, it being forbidden to offer the one 
without the other; because as the head cannot 
subsist without the body, nor the body without the 
head, in like manner the people cannot be without 
Christ, nor Christ without the people. If, therefore, 
this wine which is sanctified by the office of min- 
isters is changed corporeally into the blood of 
Christ, then the water which is mixed with it must 
also of necessity, be corporeally changed into the 
blood of the believing people ; for where the sancti- 
flcation is one, the operation is consequently one ; 
and where the reason is equal, the mystery also 
that follows it is equal. But as for the water, we 
see that there is no such corporeal change wrought 
in it; it therefore follows that in the wine there is 
no corporeal transmutation. Whatsoever then of 

1 Non inale ant inconsulte omittantur igitur omnia hsec a 
finepaginEe: •' Considerandum quoquequod inpaneillo,"&c; 
usque ad illud multo post. " Sed aliud est quod exteriiis geri- 
tur," &c, in eadem pag. Index Expurg. Belg. an. 1571, in 
Eertramo. See Daille on the Right Use of the Fathers, p. 91. 



RISE, PROGRESS AND ESTABLISHMENT. 345 

the body of the people is signified by the water, is 
taken spiritually, therefore, whatsoever of the blood 
of Christ is intimated by the wine must be taken 
spiritually. 

Again, those things which differ among them- 
selves, are not the same. Now the body of Christ 
which died, and was raised up to life again, dies no 
more, having become immortal ; and death having 
no more power over it ; it is eternal and free from 
further suffering. But this, which is consecrated 
in the church is temporal, not eternal ; corruptible, 
not free from corruption ; in its journey, and not in 
its native country. They differ from one another 
and are, therefore, not the same. If, then, they are 
not the same, how can this be called the true body of 
Christ, and his true blood? If it be the body of 
Christ, and if it may be truly said that this body of 
Christ is really and truly the body of Christ — the 
real body of Christ being incorruptible and impas- 
sible, and therefore eternal — consequently, this body 
of Christ which is operated in the Church, must 
necessarily be incorruptible and eternal also. But 
it cannot be denied that it does corrupt, since it is 
divided into parts and distributed to be eaten ; 
and being ground by the teeth it is cast into the 
body." 1 

1 Considerandum quoque, quod in pane illo non solum cor- 
pus Christi, verum etiam corpus in cum credentis populi 
figuretur, uncle multis frumenti granis conficitur, quia corpus 
populi credentis multis per verba Christi fidelibus augmenta- 
tur, (al. coagmentatur.) Qua de re sicut mysterio panis ille 
Christi corpus accipitur : sic etiam in mysterio membra pop- 
uli credentis in Christum intimantur. Et sicut non corpor- 
aliter, sed spiritualiter panis ille credentium corpus dicitur; 
sic quoque Christi corpus non corporaliter sed spiritualiter 
necesse est intelligatur. Sic et in vino, qui sanguis Christi 
dicitur, aquamisceri jubetur, nee nnum sine altero permittitur 
oft'erri, quia nee populns sine Christo, nee Christus sine 
populo, sicut nee caput sine corpore, vel corpus sine capite 



346 ON THE EUCHARIST. 

John Scotus, however, as being a philosopher, 
expressed his views perspicuously and properly, 
teaching that the bread and wine are signs and repre- 
sentations of the absent body and blood of Christ. 
Having no determinate opinion, the other theologi- 
ans fluctuate, and assert in one place what they 
gainsay in another ; and reject at one time what 
they presently after maintain. Among the Latins, 
therefore, in that age, there was not yet a deter- 
minate common opinion as to the mode in which 
the body and blood of Christ are in the Eucharist, 

At this time also, no mention is made ol the wor- 
ship of the sacrament, much less contended for, and 
none maintained that the soul and divinity of 
Christ are contained in the Eucharist; which are 



valet existere, igitur si vinum illud, sanctificatum per minis- 
trorum officium, in Christi sanguinem corporaliter converti- 
tur, aqua quoque, quae pariter admixta est, in sanguinem 
populi credentis necesse est corporaliter convertatur. Ubi 
namque una sanctificatio est, una consequenter operatio; et 
ubi par ratio, par quoque consequitur mysterium. At vidi- 
mus in aqua secundum corpus nihil esse conversum, conse- 
quenter ergo et in vino nihil corporaliter ostensum. Accipi- 
tur spiritualiter quicquid in aqua de populi corpore signifi- 
catur; accipiatur ergo necesse est spiritualiter quicquid in 
vino de Christi sanguine intimatur. Item, quae a se differunt, 
idem non sunt; corpus Christi, quod mortuum est, et resur- 
rexit, et immortale factum jam non moritur, et mors illi ultra 
non dominabitur, seternum est, jam non passibile. Hoc autem, 
quod in ecclesia celebratur temporale est, non eeternum; cor- 
ruptibile est, non incorruptibile, in via est, non in patria. 
Differunt igitur a se quapropter non sunt idem. Quod si non 
sunt idem, quomodo verum corpus Christi dicitur, et verus 
sanguis ? Si enim corpus Christi est, et hoc dicitur vere, quia 
corpus Christi in veritate corpus Christi est, et si in veritate 
corpus Christi, incorruptibile est, et impassibile, ac per hoc 
seternum. Hoc igitur corpus Christi quod agitur in ecclesia 
necesse est ut incorruptibile sit, et seternum. Sed negari non 
protest corrumpi; quod per partes commutatum dispartitur 
ad sumendum, et dentibus commolitum in corpus trajicitur. 
Bertram. Presbyt. lib. de Corp. et Sang. Dom. Quoted by 
Dailli in the work cited, p. 90. 



RISE, PROGRESS AND ESTABLISHMENT. 347 

additional proofs of the novelty of these doctrines. 
The testimony of Eabanus Maurus, Archbishop of 
Mentz, A. D. 847, is worthy of notice. He says : 
"Sorne persons, of late, not entertaining a sound 
opinion, respecting the sacrament of the body and 
blood of our Lord, have actually ventured to declare, 
that this is the identical body and blood of our 
Lord Jesus Christ; the identical body, to wit, 
which was born of the Virgin Mary, in which Christ 
suffered on the cross, and in which he arose from 
the dead. This error we have opposed with all 
our might." ] 

5. During the tenth century there was little or 
no controversy on the subject of the sacrament of 
the Eucharist. Opinion seemed to be divided, 
keeping about the same bounds as in the ninth cen- 
tury. Some of the Latin doctors held that Christ's 
real body and blood are present in the Eucharist, 
while others believed the Lord's body to be not 
present, and to be received in the sacrament only 
by a holy exercise of the soul. " The moderation 
and forbearance manifested in this age respecting 
this holy sacrament, is not to be attributed to the 
wisdom and virtue of the age," says Mosheim; "it 
was rather the want of intelligence and knowledge, 
which rendered both parties indisposed and unable 
to contend on these subjects." 2 

As yet, the doctrine of transubstantiation was 
unknown to the English; it was, however, received 
by some of the French and German divines. 3 In 
the year 980, Heriger, an English abbot, composed 
a homily which was used in the churches in London 
in 990, as follows: "There is a great difference 

1 Raban. Maur. Epist. ad Heribald, c. 33. Cited by Elliott, 
vol. i, p. 277. 

2 Eccles. Hist. Cent, x, part 2, chap. 3, sec. 2. 

3 See note on the same place. 



348 OX THE EUCHARIST. 

between the body in which Christ suffered, and that 
body consecrated in the host. The one was born 
of the Virgin Mary, consisting of flesh, bones, skin, 
nerves, human members, and a rational soul ; but 
his spiritual body which we call the Jiost, is made 
of many grains, without blood, bones, members, or 
soul. The body which once died, and rose from 
the dead, shall die no more, but is eternal and im- 
passible; but the host is temporal, corruptible, 
distributed into various parts, ground by the teeth, 
and passes into the belly; lastly, this is a mystery, 
pledge and figure; but the body of Christ is truth 
itself. What is seen is bread, — what is understood 
spiritually is life." 

6. In the beginning of the eleventh century, A. 
D. 1004, Leutheric, Archbishop of Sems, had taught, 
contrary to the more general opinion, that only the 
holy and worthy communicants received the body 
of Christ; but Robert, King of France, and the 
advice of friends, prevented him from raising com- 
motion among the people by the doctrine. But 
toward the middle of the century, controversy was 
revived respecting the manner in which Christ's 
body and blood are present in the Eucharist. In 
the year 1045, Berengarius, a canon and master of 
the school at Tours, and afterward Archdeacon of 
Angers, publicly professed his opposition to the 
doctrine of Paschasius. He was a man of profound 
learning and acuteness, but wanting in moral 
courage to adhere unwaveringly to his profession. 
He was condemned for heresy by several councils. 
Leo IX, the Boman Pontiff, in the year 1050, 
caused his opinion to be condemned, first in a 
council at Pome, and then in one at Vercelli, and 
ordered the work of Scotus from which it was de- 
rived, to be committed to the flames. Berengarius 
was not present at either of these councils. Two 
persons, whom he sent to the latter named council 



RISE, PROGRESS AND ESTABLISHMENT. 349 

to maintain his doctrine, were forced to be silent as 
soon as they had commenced. "A council held 
at Faiis in the same year,'' says Mosheim, "by 
Henry, King of France, concurred in the decision 
of the Pontiff; and issued very severe threats 
against Berengarius who was absent, and against 
his adherents who were numerous. A part of these 
threatening^ were felt by Berengarius, for the King 
deprived him of the income of his office. But 
neither threats, nor decrees, nor fines, could move 
him to reject the oj)inion which he had embraced. 

This controversy now rested for some years, and 
Berengarius who had many enemies, (among whom 
his rival Lanfranc was the principal,) and also 
many patrons and friends, was restored to his 
former tranquillity. But after the death of Leo IX, 
his adversaries incited Victor II, the new Pontiff, 
to order the cause to be tried again before his 
legates, in two councils held at Tours in France, 
A. D. 1054. In one of these councils in which the 
celebrated Hildebrand, afterward Gregory VII, 
was one of the papal legates, Berengarius was pre- 
sent, and being overcome, by threats, undoubtedly, 
rather than by arguments, he not only gave up his 
opinion, but (if we may believe his adversaries who 
are the only witnesses Ave have) abjured it, and was 
reconciled to the church. This docility, however, 
was only feigned; for he soon after went on teach- 
ing the same doctrine as before, though perhaps 
more cautiously. How much censure he deserves 
for this transaction it is difficult to say, as we are 
not well informed of what was done at the council. 

Nicolaus II being informed of this bad faith of 
Berengarius, in the year 1058 summoned him to 
Kome ; and in a very full council, held there in the 
year 1059, he so terrified him, that Berengarius 
requested a formula of faith to be prescribed for 
him, which being accordingly done by Humbert, 
30 



350 ON THE EUCHARIST, 

Berengarius subscribed to it and confirmed it with 
an oath. In this formula he declares, that he be- 
lieves "what Nicolaus and the council required to 
be believed, namely, that the bread and wine after 
consecration are not only a sacrament, but also the 
real body and blood of Christ, and are sensibly, and 
not merely sacramentally, but really and truly 
handled by the hands of the priests, broken and 
masticated by the teeth of the faithful." 1 This 
opinion however was too monstrous to be really be- 
lieved by such a man as Berengarius, who was a 
man of discernme-nt and a philosopher. Therefore, 
when he returned to France, relying, undoubtedly, 
upon the protection of his patrons, he expressed his 
detestation, both orally and in his writings, of what 
he had expressed at Borne, and defended his former 
sentiments. Alexander II, indeed, admonished him 
in a friendly letter to reform, but he attempted 
nothing against him; probably because he per- 
ceived him to be upheld by powerful supporters. 
Of course the controversy was protracted many 
years in various publications, and the number of 
Berengarius' followers increased. 

When Gregory VII was raised to the Papal 
chair, he also undertook to settle this controversy, 
and for this purpose, summoned Berengarius to 
Borne in the year 1078. He seems to have been 
attached to Berengarius, and to have yielded rather 
to the clamors of his adversaries, than to have 

1 Ego Berengarius, &c., consentio sanctae Romanae sedi, 
corde profiteor et ore, et — de sacramentis Dominicae mensae, 
earn fidem me tenere quam Dominus Papa Nicolaus et haec S. 
Synodus authoritate evangelica et apostolica tenendam tradi- 
dit, mihique firniavit; silicet, panem et vinum quae in altari 
ponuntur, post consecrationem, verum corpus et sanguinem 
Domini nostri Jesu Christi esse, et sensualiter, non solum Sa- 
cramento sed veritate, manibus sacerdotum tractari, frangi et 
fideliuni dentibus atteri. Apud Gratian, de Consecr. dis. 2, 
c. 42. 



351 

followed his own inclinations. In a council held 
near the close of the year, he allowed the accused 
to draw up a new formula of faith for himself, and 
to abandon the old formula drawn up by Humbert, 
though it had been sanctioned by Nicolaus II and 
by a council ; for Gregory being a man of discern- 
ment, undoubtedly saw the absurdity of that form- 
ula. Berengarius, therefore, now professed to be- 
lieve, and swore that he would in future believe 
only, "that the bread of the altar after consecra- 
tion is the real body of Christ which was born of 
the Virgin, suffered on the cross, and is seated at 
the right hand of the Father; and that the wine of 
the altar after consecration is the real blood which 
flowed from Christ's side." But his enemies, main- 
taining that this formula was ambiguous, were not 
satisfied, and demanded that one more definite 
might be prescribed for him. To their importunate 
demands the Pontiff yielded. The following year 
therefore, A. D. 1079, in a council held again at 
Eome, Berengarius was required to repeat, sub- 
scribe, and swear to a third formula, which was 
milder than the first, but harsher than the second. 
According to this, he professed to believe, "that 
the bread and wine, by the mysterious rite of the 
holy prayer, and the words of our Redeemer, are 
changed in their substance, into the real and proper 
and vivifying flesh and blood of Jesus Christ;" and 
he also added to what he had professed by the 
second formula, "that the bread and wine are," 
after consecration, "the real body and blood of 
Christ, not only by a sign and in virtue of a sacra- 
ment, but in their essential properties, and in the 
reality of their substance." But this forced profes- 
sion was only feigned ; for as soon as he returned 
home he discarded and confuted by a book what he 
had professed at Rome in the last council. Indeed, 
Martine has published a writing of Berengarius in 



352 ON THE EUCHARIST. 

which he most humbly begs God to forgive the sin 
he committed at Eome; and acknowledges, that 
through fear of death, he assented to the proposed 
formula, and accused himself of error, contrary to 
his real belief. "God Almighty," says he, "the 
fountain of all mercy, have compassion on one who 
confesses so great a sacrilege." 

It appears, however, that Gregory agreed with 
Berengarius in his views of this sacrament, for just 
before the last council he addressed him as follows : 
"I certainly have no doubt that your views of the 
sacrifice of Christ are correct and agreeable to the 
Scriptures ; yet because it is my custom to recur on 

important subjects, &c I have enjoined upon a 

friend who is a religious man — to obtain from St. 
Mary, that she would through him vouchsafe not 
to conceal from me, but expressly instruct me, what 
course I should take in the business before me re- 
lating to the sacrifice of Christ, that I may perse- 
vere in it immovably." And what was her 
response? He says, "My friend learned from St. 
Mary and reported to me, that no inquiries were 
to be made, and nothing to be held respecting the 
sacrifice of Christ beyond what the authentic Scrip- 
tures contain; against which, Berengarius held 
nothing. This I wished to state to you, that jouv 
confidence in us might be more secure, and your 
anticipations more pleasing." Gregory, therefore, 
appears to have believed that we should simply 
hold what the sacred volume was supposed to teach, 
that the real body and blood of Christ are exhibited 
in the Eucharist, but should not dispute about the 
manner of it. Besides, he undoubtedly approved of 
the second formula drawn up by Berengarius him- 
self; for he neither punished his inconsistency, nor 
manifested displeasure at his recantation of the 
third formula which had been obtruded upon him, 
contrary to the inclination of the Pontiff. "He 



RISE, PROGRESS AND ESTABLISHMENT. 353 

was constrained/' says Berengarius, " by the im- 
portunity of the buffoon — not bishop — of Padua, 
and of the antichrist — not bishop — of Pisa, to per- 
mit the calumniators of the truth in the last Quad- 
ragesimal council, to alter the writing sanctioned 
by them in the former council." Having experi- 
enced much opposition, Berengarius at length re- 
tired to the island of St. Cosme near Tours, where 
he led a solitary life in prayer, fasting, and other 
devotional exercises, and bitterly repented of his 
want of firmness and his dissimulation, until the 
year 1088, when he reached the end of life and 
persecution. Like some of the Reformers, he ap- 
pears to have been a consubstantiationist, as we 
infer from the second formula drawn up by him- 
self, and from his language in a letter to Alman- 
nus. "It is evident," says he, "that Christ's true 
body is placed upon the table, but truo spiritually 
to the interior man; because the incorrupt, untarn- 
ished, and unbruised body of Christ is spiritually 
eaten by those only, who are members of Christ;" 1 
and from what his enemies attribute to him. Thus 
Guitmund observes: "But it is confirmed by the 
consent of the church universal, that the bread and 
wine of the altar of the Lord are substantially 
changed into the body and blood of Christ (not as 
Berengarius raves, that they are only figures and 
shadows of the Lord's body and blood, or cover 
Christ concealed within themselves.") 2 

1 Constat verum Christ! corpus in ipsa mensa proponi, sed 
spiritualiter interiori homini verum, in ea Christi corpus ab 
his duntaxat, qui Christi membra sunt, incorruptum, intami- 
natum inattritumque spiritualiter mandncari. Martine's 
Thesaur. torn, iv, p. 109. See Note 23 in Mosheim's Eccles. 
Hist. Cent, xi, part ii, chap. 3, sec. 18. 

2 Sed panem et vinum altaris Domini in corpus et sangui- 
nem Christi substantialiter commutari, (non sicut delirat 
Berengarius corporis et sanguinis Domini figuras tantum esse 



354 ON THE EUCHARIST. 

From the foregoing considerations we may re- 
mark, that in the eleventh age, the belief of the 
Romish Churchy respecting the Eucharist, had not 
come to any fixed determination, as the three 
formulas of Berexgarius evince, beyond successful 
controversy ; for they most manifestly disagree, not 
in words only, but in import. 

Nicolaus II and his council decided, that the first 
formula which Cardinal Humbert drew up, was 
sound and contained the true doctrine of the 
church. But this was rejected, and deemed too 
crude and erroneous, not only by Gregory, but also 
by his two councils that tried the cause. For if the 
Pontiff and his councils had believed that this for- 
mula expressed the true sense of the church, they 
would never have suffered another to be substituted 
for it. Besides, the gloss upon the canon law says, 
" that, unless, we understand these words of Beren- 
garius in a sound sense, we shall fall into a greater 
heresy than that of Berexgarius ; for we do not make 
parts of the body of Christ." As we have seen, 
Gregory supposed that the doctrine of this sacra- 
ment, was not to be explained too minutely, but 
that, dismissing all questions, as to the mode of 
Christ's presence, the words of the sacred volume 
were simply to be adhered to ; and as Berexgarius 
had done this in his formula, the Pontiff pronounced 
him no offender. But the last council departed 
from the opinion of the Pontiff; and the Pontiff, 
though reluctant, suffered himself to be drawn over 
to the opinion of the council. Hence, the third 
formula, disagreeing with both the former ones." 1 

"In the commencement of the eleventh century," 
says Elliott, "Aelfrick, Archbishop of Canterbury, 
in his Saxon Homily, maintains the doctrine of 

et umbras, ant intra se latentem Christum tegere) universalis 
EcclesifB consensioae roboratum est. Guitmundi, lib. iii, dc 
Sacramento. 
1 See Mosheim's Eccles. Hist, in loco cit. 



RISE, PROGRESS AND ESTABLISHMENT. 355 

Bertram, and in nearly his words. In his letter to 
Wulfin, Bishop of Schirburn, he says : ' That 
housel (i, e. sacrament) is Christ's hody, not "bodily, 
hut spiritually ; not the body which he suffered in, 
hut the body of which he spoke when he blessed the 
bread and wine to housel the night before his suf- 
fering, and said by the blessed bread, "This is my 
body/ '* And in writing to the Archbishop of 
York, he said : ' The Lord halloweth daily, by the 
hand of the priest, bread to his body, and wine to 
his blood, in spiritual mystery, as we read in books. 
And yet notwithstanding, that lively bread is not 
bodily so, nor the self-same body that Christ suf- 
fered in/ From these quotations it appears that 
transubstantiation had not yet made much progress 
in England/' 1 

*T. Nor was this the settled doctrine of the Church 
in the twelfth century, as we learn from the follow- 
ing testimonies. 

St. Bernard says: "Many things are done for 
their own sake only, others to designate something 
else ; and these are called and are signs. A ring 
is given on its own account, absolutely, and then 
there is nothing signified. It is also given for in- 
vesting some one with an inheritance ; and then it 
is a sign; so that he who takes the ring may now say ; 
the ring of itself is of no avail ; but it is the inherit- 
ance which I sought. In this manner, therefore, 
did our Lord, when he approached his passion, take 
care that his disciples should be invested with his 
grace, so that, by some visible sign, his invisible 
grace should be afforded. For this end have all 
sacraments been instituted, and for this is the Eu- 
charist to be received." 2 He also teaches, "that 

1 Vol. i, p. 278. See Usher's Answer, p. 79, and Bishop 
Taylor on the Real Presence, sec. 12, Id. 

2 In fcunc itaque modnm, appropinquans passioni 

Dominus, de gratia sua investiri curavit suos, ut invisibilis 
gratia signo aliquo visibili praestaretur. Ad haec instituta 



356 ON THE EUCHARIST. 

the body of Christ is, in a mystery, the food of the 
mind and not of the body ; it is, therefore, not eaten 
corporeally ; for such as is this food, so it is under- 
stood to be eaten/' 1 

Peter Lombard, Master of the Sentences, A. D. 
1160, says: "If it be inquired what kind of con- 
version it is, whether it be formal or substantial, or 
of another kind, I am not able to define it ; only I 
know that it is not formal, because the same acci- 
dents remain, the same color and taste. To some 
it seems to be substantial, saying, that so the sub- 
stance is changed into the substance, that it is done 
essentially ; to which the former authorities seem 
to consent. But to this sentence others oppose 
these things ; if the substance of bread and wine 
be substantially converted into the body and blood 
of Christ, then every day some substance is made 
the body and blood of Christ, which before was not 
the body; and to-day something is Christ's body 
which was not yesterday ; and every day Christ's 
body is increased, and is made of such matter of 
which it was not made in the conception." 2 In his 
time there "appear to have been four opinions per- 
mitted and disputed. The first was that of con- 
substantiation ; the second, that the substance of 
bread is made the flesh of Christ, but ceases not to 
be what it was ; another was, that the substance of 
bread is not converted, but annihilated ; and a 
fourth was the doctrine of transubstantiation, con- 
fusedly held and variously defended and explained.'' 

sunt omnia sacramenta, ad hsec Eucharistiae participatio. 
Serm. de Coma. Dom. in Joan. vi. 

1 Quod Christi corpus in mysterio cibus mentis sit et non 
ventris, proinde corj3oraliter non manducatur ; sicut enim 
cibus est, ita et comedi intelligatur. Idem, Serm. de Purif. 
B. Mariae. 

2 Lib. iii, de Eucli., c. 23, sec. unum tarn en. Sum. lib. iii, 
c. 20. See Bishop Taylor's Dissuasive, sec. iv, paragraph, Now 
for this, &c. 



RISE, PROGRESS AND ESTABLISHMENT. 357 

The opinions of Christian doctors concerning the 
manner in which the body and blood of Christ are 
present in the Eucharist were, therefore, somewhat 
various in the twelfth century ; nor had the church 
determined, by any clear and positive decree, her 
precise doctrine on this point. 

8. But it was Innocent III who pronounced the 
opinion that is now embraced by the Church of 
Rome. He summoned a council consisting of four 
hundred and twelve bishops in person, about eight 
hundred abbots and priors, and a large number of 
deputies of the absent bishops and of the chapters. 

The council met in the Church of St. Saviour de 
Lateran, November, 1215. The Pope read seventy 
canons or decrees, already drawn up without any 
deliberation, debate, or voting on the part of the 
council. In proof of this statement, the language of 
Dupin, in his account of this council, may be quoted. 
"It is certain," says he, "that these canons were 
not made by the council, but by Innocent III, who 
presented them to the council ready drawn up, and 
ordered them to be read; and that the prelates did 
not enter into any debate upon them, but that their 
silence was taken for an approbation." These de- 
crees, or canons, though not ordained by the coun- 
cil, obtained reputation by being inserted among 
the decretals of Gregory IX, which was done, not 
in the name of the council, but in the name of In- 
nocent. They were first published under the name 
of the Lateran Council in 1538, by John Cochlreus. 
The decree on transubstantiation is as follows: 
" The body and blood of Christ are contained really 
in the sacrament of the altar under the species of 
bread and wine ; the bread being transubstantiated 
into the body of Jesus Christy and the wine into his 
blood, by divine power." 1 For this wonderful tran- 

1 Concil. Lateran iv, cap. i. 



358 ON THE EUCHARIST. 

substantiation the following curions reason is as- 
signed: a That we might receive of Christ's nature 
what he had received of ours." The word tran- 
substantiation was first used by Stephen, Bishop of 
Augustodunum, and so pleased Innocent, that he 
inserted it in his decrees proposed to the council. 1 

From the foregoing it appears, that instead of 
the change in the doctrine of the Eucharist having 
been effected suddenly, as you suppose, it required 
centuries, for men so far to abandon their better 
reason and judgment, as to receive the dogma in 
question, as a doctrine of Christianity. 

In conclusion, I have now performed the task 
imposed by your denial of the fact, that the Fathers 
of the first six or seven centuries after Christ, speak 
of the Eucharist as the figure of Christ's broken 
body and shed blood. In doing this, recourse has 
been had, in all possible cases, to the original docu- 
ments of the ancient Church. And where I have 
been unable to consult the original author, I have 
availed myself of the productions of those only, in 
whom I could confide, as learned and reliable 
writers. 

The evidence which has been adduced, both ex- 
press and constructive, would seem to be sufficient, to 
satisfy any honest mind not so wedded to a system, 
as to "be proof against the grounds of rational belief. 
All which is commended to your candid and prayer- 
ful consideration, as a fellow-traveler toward that 
final tribunal, where even the thoughts of the heart 
shall be laid open to the All-seeing eye of God. 

With the continued and sincere regards of 

Your fellow-servant and Brother, 

E. 0. P. 



1 See Elliott on Romanism, vol. i,Book ii, chap. 4. 



APPENDIX. 



LETTER III. 



k Spiritus est enim, inquit, qui mviftcat; caro autem nihil pro- 
dest. Tunc autem, quando hoc Dominus commendavit, de 
carne sua locutus erat, et dixerat: Nisi quis manducaverit, 
camera meam, non habebit in se vitam mternam. Scandalizati 
sunt discipuli ejus quidam, septuaginta ferine, et dixerunt : 
Durus est Mc sermo ; quis potest eum intelligere? et recesserunt 
ab eo, ut amplius cum eo non ambulaverunt. Durum illis 
visum est quod ait, Nisi, quis manducaverit carnem meam, non 
habebit vitam ce^ernam: acceperunt illud stulte, carnaliter illud 
cogitaverunt, et putaverunt quod prsecisurus esset Dominus 
particulas quasdam de corpore suo, et datarus illis, et dixe- 
runt, Bums est hie sermo. Ipsi erant duri, non sermo. Etenim 
si duri non essent, sed mites essent, dicerent sibi: Non sine 
causa dicit hoc, nisi quia est ibi aliquod sacramentum latens. 
Manerent cum illo lenes, non duri; et discerent ab illo, quod, 
illis discedentibus, qui remanserunt, didicerunt. Nam cum 
remansissent cum illo discipuli duodecim, illis recedentibus, 
suggesserunt illi, tanquam dolentes illorum mortem, quod 
scandalizati sunt in verbo ejus et recesserunt. Ille autem in- 
struxit eos et ait illis, Spiritus est qui viviiicat; caro autem nihil 
prodest : verba quod locutus sum nobis, spiritus est et vita. Spiritu- 
aliter intelligite quod locutus sum : non hoc corpus quod vi- 
detis, manducaturi estis; et bibituri ilium sanguinem, quern 
fusuri sunt qui me crucifigent. Sacramentum aliquod vobis 
commendavi; spiritualiter intellectum vivificabit vos. Etsi 
necesse est illud visibiliter celebrari, oportet tamen invisibi- 
liter intelligi. 

B Kcci Svroiv^ot yetp oe.^(pors pec tfepi Soivtov slpyxe o-ot.px.ee km 
'jnev^oc xol\ to ifvsvfA.cc , 7rpo£ro xotra creipxx oisrrsiXe v, tvet 
y>r\ (xovov to (poavof*,evov ecWet xut to ctopxrov ccvtov tfia-TSvcr- 
avreZ fjcothaa-tv, ori xtx>\ et Xeyei, ovx so-ti c-apxixct, ccKkot 
7T]/Sv^xtixx, TLotfottf yoco v\px,Z\ ro crupet tfpog /3pwo"iv, net, 



360 APPENDIX. 

xcci rov y,ocr^ov 7rocVTor rovro rpo(p7) ysvr\roc( ; AXX« diu 
reuro rye, Sig ovpuvovg ccvcc[3aaeu<Z £^vr\\x,ovevcrB too oioo rov 
esvSpoj^-oo , ivot tt]G ca/^xTcXYj? evvosxr otvrovr x(pehxv<rf 3) xot\ 
Xotftov rr\v gi^rjjxsv/jv coipxx (3pojcriv ojvoo^Sv ovpuviov, xoti KvSv- 
/u.octw/}v rpo(pr]v Trutp' ccvrov did r j/u.SVi)i> ^cfoatfiv a yap XsXesX?))c«, 
<p"/]<riv, rj/tt/v, 7rvtv/AX em xxi ^wtj • ;c*oji rw eiTSJv, ro /«.£» 
ottxvv^svov xct\ dtfiofiSvov v7TSo rrtf rov xocr\x.ov curyptctG, 
eCfriv y\ o-otp%y\v syco cpop&>' ctXX' <x.vri\ vtxiv xcci ro rotvrrg ui^lcc 
Troop 1 tjXoo tfvevftemxGJS $oSjjot-T«&* rpo<p7) , wcts Trvsvpetrixwg 
Sv exoccrro rccvrr}V ccvctSi8o<r%oti, xwyi\>S<r§ect 7rx<j-i (pvXuxrripm 
Sig cc\oca-rcca-tv Pwqg cctu k>v. 



LETTER IV. 

A Qv% r /]O0[AU\ rpocpy) cp§opcc5, ovds r^Sovoti^- rov (3iov rovrov 
etprov rov Qeov SeXw otprev ovpaviov, ciprov Zwr\Z o effrt <jce.p£ 
I Tjo-eo X^io-roo too o/oo rov Qeov, rov ysvo^evov Sv vcrrepu ex 
eirSp/Accrog &ct[3i8 xcci Afipoia,^' xcci 7roy.oo SsXw to uifict, uvrov. 
o Srfr^y fl6y«<7fii ctqfoccproi, xoti asvvcioG £w/j. 

B Aies Toyra tog' V7J5tjo/£, 6 ccproi 6 reXsiog too Ylotrpoi yockoc. 
vjfliiy Sosorov crotpf o-^fv, oTTSp ^v r) xs6T ! avSpwffo v «tToy 7rxpovo-ict f 
wot w£ osro (Jvoto-^oo ttj£ o-otpxo? otoToo, rpcxpevrsg, xoti Slot rr\g 
ToiotvrriZ ycthotxrovpyictt, S^itrS-svrsg rpuystv xoti nrtveiv rov 
Xoyov too @£oo, -rov T7]£ othatvouriotg apro v , ottS/i eo-rj ro 7rvcvu,ct 
rov Ticcrpoi, ev r^sv uvroig xccrso-yjiv ^ovtjSoj|X3V. 

c Etsi camem ait nihil prodesse, ex materia dicti dirigen- 
dus est sensus. Nam, quia durum et intolerabilem existima- 
verunt sermonein ejus, quasi vere carnem suam illis edendam 
determin asset; ut in spiritum disponeretstatum salutis, prae- 
misit, spiritus est qui vivificat. Atque ita subjunxit, caro nihil 
prodest; ad vivificandum scilicet. Exequitur etiam quid 
velit intelligi spiritum, verba quae locutus sum vobis, spiri- 
tus sunt; vita sunt. Sicut et supra, qui audit sermones meos 
et credit in eum qui me misit, habet vitam aeternam, et in ju- 
dicium non veniet, sed transiet de morte ad vitam. Itaque 
sermonem constituens vivitlcatorem, quia spiritus et vita ser- 
mo eundem etiam carnem suam dixit ; quia et sermo caro est 
factus, proinde in causam vitse appetendus, et devorandns 
auditu, et ruminandus intellectu, et iide digerendus. Nam 
et paulo ante carnem suam pan em quoque ccelestem pronun- 



APPENDIX. 361 

ciavat, urgens usquequaque per allegoriam necessariorum pab- 
ulorum, memoriam patrum, qui panes et carnes Egyptiorum 
praeverterant divinae vocatioui. 

Igitur conversns ad recogitatus illorum quia senserat dis- 
pergendos, caro, ait, nihil prodest. Quid hoc ad destruen- 
dani carnis resurrectiouem ? 

D Sed quam eleganter divina sapientia ordin em Oration is 
instruxit ! utpost ccelestia, id est, post Dei nomeu, Dei volun- 
tatem, et Dei regnum, terrenis quoque necessitatibus petitioni 
locum facerat: nam edixerat Dominus; Quserite prius reg- 
num, et tunc vobis etiam hsec adjicientur. Quamquam pa- 
nem nostrum quotidianum da nobis hodie spiritaliter potius 
intelligamus, Christus enim panis noster est; quia vita Chris- 
tus, et vita panis, Ego sum, inquit, panis vitas, Et paulo 
supra; panis est sermo Dei vivi, qui descendit de coelis. 
Tunc quod et corpus ejus in pane censetur: hoc est corpus 
meum. Itaque petendo panem quotidianum, perpetuitatem 
postulamus in Christo, et individuitatem a corpore ejus. Sed 
et quia carnaliter admittitur ita vox, non sine religione pro- 
test fieri et spiritalis disciplinae. 

E Panem nostrum quotidianum da nobis hodie. Quod 
potest et spiritaliter et simpliciter intelligi, quia et uterque 
intellectus utilitate divina proficit ad salutem. Nam panis 
vita Christus est, et panis hie omnium non est, sed nostra est. 
Et quo mod o dicimus pater noster, quia intelligentium et cre- 
dentium pater est; Sic et panem nostrum vocamus, quia 
Christus, noster qui corpus ejus contingimus, panis est. 
Hunc autem panem dari nobis quotidie postulamus, ne qui 
in Christo sumus, et eucharistiam quotidie ad cibum salutis 
accepimus, intercedente aliquo graviore delicto, dum abstenti 
et non communicantes a coelesti pane prohibemur, a Christo 
corpore separemur, ipso prgedicante et monente: Ego sum 
panis vitae qui decoelo decendi; si quis ederit de meo pane, 
vivetin seternum; panis autem quem ego dedero caro mea 
est pro sseculi vita. Quando ergo dicit, in seternum vivere si 
quis ederit de ejus pane, ut manifestum est eos vivere qui cor- 
pus ejus attingunt et eucharistiam jure communicationis ac- 
cipiunt, ita contra timendum est et orandum, ne dum quis 
abstentus separatur a Christi corpore, procul remaneat a 
salute ; comminante ipso et dicente, nisi ederitis carnem filii 
hominis et biberitis sanguinem ejus, non habebitis vitam in 
vobis. 

F AXX«}£<»$f< Sexxto Kvpiogev tw xuta iGJcevvyjv Yivotryyzhib) , 
Srepwf egyveyxev dice trvp&okuv (pxyscr^s pov rcci o-xpxc&r , 

31 



362 APPENDIX. 

Sjjtwv xxt macros [jlov to ut^x' Svxpysz rr\g idtrreu^ xxt r^r 
Sftxyys'kiXT to Trort^ov xXkrjyopuv , Ji wv jj 2xx\'f\er i x , xtihxirsp 
«vSpW7T«^, ex sroXXwv c-vvSa-Trixvix fASXwv , otp5sr«; TS y.eci 
xv^erxi, dvyxpor street tbxxi crv^Tryyvvrcci e% x^rpotv FuparaG 
ju-cv , rvfe Kio-rtw -^v/rfc de , ttjs sXttkW. wc-Trsp xe« 6 Kt-^ios 
sx cetpxo? xou xi^xto^' ra yxp ovti xivlx <tv\? ^rtcrsug r\ 
e\<m$ Sip' Tir rvvey^eTat, xx^X7rsp wro -^v^tf , ig 5T<g-tj£. 

Gt O AoT/or t# wotvr« tgj yrjTriw, x«i i(xTr\p xes» (XTjr^p, x#< 
ttoji^os^w^os- x#< rpotpSvr . ^xySc-^ss ftov <&r\<r\ , tt]v c-otpxot, x««/ 
insa-'hs fA.ov ro xifxx. TxvTxg yjfxjv ? oixs»«£ Tpe(pa£ 6 Kj^jos- 
X°P r iy Sl > Xoti °"«^*« 'opeyes xxi aifxa exyzei xxi ovdsv sir 
oty|-/)3*/v to/£ ttcsk^ojs' e v(5f i • oj rot» 7rxpxdo£ov fiv&Typiovl 
A7ro^v(fxT^!eti v\\y,tv <tt]v TraXouacv x«i c-,»px/x?]v syxe^evsrxj 
©Sopesv, w^Trep jjom ttjv 7rx\xixv rpo(pn]v . xxwr\<; de «XXy)£ trfc 
Xp/croy haiT'Os pSTaXxfifixvovrxr, exeivov, et Svvxtov, xvx- 
"kxf*.3xvovTx<Z, Sv exvroig xiror&e&xi , xa/ rov o-wmpa Svc-rSp- 

'AXX* 6y TCSV77]* poejv e^fAS^f, xoivotS/5<jv (5e 10-ws-. Axez/S' 
xoi» TotyTTj * rxpxtz rftjuv ?o Uvevfix to xyiov xXk'f\yopZi. xxi 
yxp wk* xvrov rov 5sdy\^ovpyrpxt r /j <rxp%. Aty.x ?j|uuv Toy 
Ao^sv *s< v»ttS-to&< • x«< ye&a w£ x\p*x irXovrtov , h Aoyos Ski- 
xeyyTxx tw (3tw fy xpxu-ls de fy ota(po»v , 6 Kvpjer, >j rpopyj 
twv vtjtjwv 6 Kup»o£. Tlvsv^ix xxi Ao^os-* tj Tpocfrj, tovso-ti 
Kvpiog Iyjg-ovG, tqvSo-tiv 6 Aoyogrov ©fof, Uvev^x <rxpx.ovpe- 
v«v xyixPo^ZMfi cxpjz ovpxvios - r\ Tpocpiq t to yxka tov IlfltTpo^, 
w ytfcovw T;T^eyo(XsS<!6 o< »7jttioi. 

H . . . . OfTw^ ^-oXAa^w^ otXAr)yo^e»T^/ 6 Ao/or. xoti (3 pupa, 
xxi crxp%, xxi <rpo(py), xxi apTOG , xxi xi^xx, xxi yx\ao.7ro.vTa o 
~Kvpiog, eig a7rokavo^iv -yj/j-cj v <rwv eig ayrov 7re<Kto'TSvxoTuv. 

l . . . . On <5e <ro aiju,a o Ao^os- ec-Tiw , (xapTt»pe< t«w AjSsk 
Toy 6<xaj(»y to a/fxa SvTvy^avov tw ©tw. 

J "Apa xa» a»/xa xa» yaXa, tou Kup»ou 'Tra^ou^ xa» ^^atfxaXiag 
CujX/SoXov. 

K Aittov 5s to aijxa tou Kupiou* to /xsv yap 'stfTtv "aOrou tfap~ 
xjxov, w Trjf (p^opaj XsXuTpojfxSoa. to 8s irvsvpaTixov, TouTftfTiv 
w xs^p^rf/xs^a. Kou tout' 'sCti cr<e»v to ai,aa tou T/iCou, T>)g 
xupjaxrjj fxSTaXa/3£«v 'a^^aptfjaj. 



APPENDIX. 363 

M 'E» tj'vuv to fxsv yaXa, <rwv vyiriuv to /3pwjxa 5s, twv teXsi- 
wv Tpo<prj irpog tow AtfotfToXou s/prjTa/, yaXa fxsv ?j xaTrj^Tja'/s, 
ojovSi <Kpeaty\ \v~/v\g Tpo<jpr), varjSrj'J'STar /3pw/xa <5s ?j eiroirrtxr) 
Srwpia* tfapxtj auTai xa/ ai^ca tou Aoyou, tousGt*, xaTaX^ir 
tjjs Se<ag 6uv«.fX;»c: xai outfiag. reutfaffSe xai <<5fTS otj XpT(f7og 
6 Kup/os, (pTgtfiv ot»TW£ yap sauTou f&sradidaxfi Toig irvsvparixa- 
Tcpov ttjs TojauTrjS pSTOLku^tBuvovtft /3p<ytfsw£. 

* Si perfecta loquimur, si robusta si fortiora, carnes vobis 
Verbi Dei apponimus comedendas. 

°"ApTov ayysXav eyayev avSpa>ffo£; x. t. A 'O SaJT^p (prjtf/v 
ST&> Sifc» 6 ap-tog © sx tou ot/pavou xtrafSag. Toutov ouv t«v apTov 
^cSiov fxsv Trpo-repov ayysXoi, vuvi (5e xai avSpojTToi. To stf^isiv 
Svray^a to y»vojo*Xsiv tf^jxafvei* tooto yap Stf^iSi voug o OSyivadxit, 
xai touto ovx scT^is* o 6u ywatfxzt. 

p Ergo de litera quidem egredimur legis ; infra virtutem 
autem s]3iritalem legem constitui, spiritaliter celebrantes im- 
plemus omnia quae illic corporaliter celebranda mandantur. 
Expellimus enim vetus fermentum malitise et nequitiae, et in 
azymis sinceritatis et veritatis celebramus pascha, Christo 
nobiscum caepulante secundum voluntatem agni dicentis: 
Nisi manducaveritis carnem meam, et biberitis sanguinem 
meum, non habebitis vitam manentem in vobis. 

Q In occultis enim et in azymis invisibilibus epulantur sin- 
ceritatis et veritatis: manducant etiam pascha immolatum 
Christum pro nobis, qui dixit; Nisi manducaveritis carnem 
meam, non habebitis vitam manentem in vobis. 

Et per hoc quod bibunt sanguinem ejus verum potum, un- 
gunt superliminaria domorum animae suae, quserentes, non 
sicut illi, ab hominibus gloriam, sed a Deo occulta videnti. 

R . . . . Jesus ergo quia totus ex toto mundus est, tota 
ejus caro cibus est, et totus sanguis ejus potus est; quia omne 
opus ejus sanctum est, et omnis sermo ejus verus est. Prop- 
terea ergo et caro ejus verus est cibus, et sanguis ejus verus 
est potus. Carnibus enim et sanguine verbi sui tanquam mun- 
do cibo ac potu, potat et reficit omne hominum genus. 

s . . . . Est enim et in Evangeliis litera quae occidit, non 
solum in veteri Testamento occidens litera deprehenditur. 
Est et in novo Testamento litera, quae occidat eum, qui non 
spiritaliter quae dicuntur advertit. Si enim secundum literam 
sequaris hoc ipsum quod dictum est: Nisi manducaveritis 



364 APPENDIX. 

carnem meam, et biberitis sanguinem meum, occidit hsec lit- 
era. 

T . . . . Airodsiwvixev en oux av TotfouTov avarjTo/ rjtfav 61 
axeuov«T££, (*>% wxo'ka^jSttMSiv on ^poxaXs/raj 6 Aeywv tou£ axpo- 
o.<ra£ sig to flrpotfsXSejv, xai s^yaysiv <rou tfa^xrjv airou. 

u Bibere dicimus sanguinem Christi, non solum sacramen- 
torum ritu, sed rt cum sermones ejus recipimus, in quibus 
vita consistit, sicut et ipse dicit, verba quae locutus sum , 
spiritus et vita est. Est ergo ipse vulneratus, cujus nos san- 
guinem bibimus, id est, doctrinse ejus verba suscipimus. 

v Mr) yap Trjv capxa, rjv irspixsi^ou, ^^idr^rs jas Xsyeiv, u£ 
6sev ecvTr\v StfSiSw, jxrj 6s to aiffSrjTov »ai tfwjULaTixov a»|wa tfivfiv, 
VKoXetfxlBavSrs fxs flrpo0raTT£<v .... &>(Jts aura S/vai <ra prj/xara 
xai' tou.c Xoyoug aoTot; Trjv tfapxa xa/ to ajjx« .... TauTa yap 
ovSev w(pcXs/ a<<r&yjTW£ axouofjuvcc, to 6s irvevf&o. Scti to £wo- 
iroiovv tov£ 9rv£y|xaT/xojg axousiv ^uva/ttevof £. 

w . . . . Ka< «ts "ffaX/v o Ku0/o£ "Key si ffcpi olvtov, gyu 
eifjLi 6 apT»g o £«v, 6 ex Tot; oupavot» xara/Sas-. 'AXAa^ot; to 
ay/ov live t/jLfca xetKs t apTev ovpuviov Xeywv, tov apTey qfiwv 
t*v e-r/ot/c-zoy <5o£ jj^/v a-vjf^spev. ~Edi6a%s yap Jjfxag s» tj? 
ff^jj ev ta; vuv a«6;v/ a/Te;v rav ftf/oftfiev apTov, tou£0tj tov 
ysXkevrec, et; Wap^Jjv s%o^sv fv tj; vuv £w>? <tt)S tfaptcog tov 
Kvptov ju,er«Xa/tt/3av«vT5g xaB-ag o.vtos etire i xat 6 apros 5e 
ov eya; <5a»(T6; 7) tfapl fcou £<r<n V &#££ tjj£ to« xe^jicof £>&*)£, 
Ilvet/fca yetp ^cifOTOiovv rj o*ap| £c*t/ Toy Kt/p/ot/. 

x . . . . E*f /vo/ fA>j axqKOoeg tfvevfixrixas tuv \syopcS\ietv 
<rx.av6aXiffB-£VTsg i aftqXB-ov s t$ to. or/tfw, voyu^ovTss oti em 
o-at.pKO<paytav o.vrovg 7rporps7rsTat. 

T f O Tpwywv /xs, (prjCj, ^(fsrai <$»' ?jas # Tpwyojxsv yap aurou 
Trjv tfapxa, xa» tivo/xsv aurou to aijxa, xoivwvo» y»vo|xsvo» <5»a t»?£ 
Svav^pco , 7rr)fl'eW?, xa» Trjg aitfSrjTrjj ^wrj^ tou Xoyou xai Tr\g tfo(p»ag* 
Capxa yap xa» a»{xa <7rao"av auTou Trjv /xurfTixrjv Sffi^rj/xiav ovojaaCc* 
xa« Trjv sx tfpaxTixrjg xa» (putfjxrjg xa? &eoXoy»xrjg tfuvstfrwd'av ^»5atf- 
xaXjav £5rjXwo*e, <5j' 77s Tps(pc-raJ 4 ,u X*l* 

zLegimus sanctas Scripturas. Ego corpus Iesu, evange- 
lium puto; Sanctas Scripturas, puto doctrinam ejus. Et 
quando dicit; qui non comederit carnem meam, et biberit 



APPENDIX. obD 

sanguinem menm : licet et in mysterio possit intelligi, tamen 
verius corpus Christi, et sanguis ejus, sermo Scripturarum est 
doctrina clivina est. Si quando imus ad mysterium : qui 
fidelis est, intelligit: si in maculam ceciderit periclitatur. 
Si quando audimus sermonem Dei, et serrno Dei, et caro 
Christi, et sanguis ejus in auribus nostris funditur, et nos 
aliud cogitaums, in quantum periculum incurrimus! .... 
Sic et in earne Christi, qui est sermo doctrina?, hoc est, 
Scripturarum Sanctarum interpretatio, sicut volumus, ita et 
cibum accipimus. Si sanctus es, invenis refrigerium ; si pec- 
cator es, invenis toimentuui. 

a Secundum tropologiam possumus dicere, omnes voluptatis 
magis amatores quam amatores Dei sanctiticari in hortis et in 
limiuibus quia mysteria veritatis non valent introire, et com- 
edere cibos impietatis, dum non sunt sancti corpore et spiritu; 
nee corned unt carnem Jesu, neque bibunt sanguinem ejus. 
De quo ipse loquitur, qui comedit carnem meam, et bibit san- 
guinem meum, habet vitam seternam. Etenim pascha nos- 
trum immolatus est Cliristus. Qui non foris, sed in domo 
una et intus comeditur. 

b Si proeceptiva est locutio, aut flagitium aut facinus vetans, 
aut benelicentiam jubens, non est figurata. Si autem flagit- 
ium aut facinus videtur jubere, aut utilitatem aut beneficen- 
tiam vetare, figurata est. Nisi manducaveritis carnem filii 
hominis, etc, — facinus vel flagitium videtur jubere; figura 
ergo est praecipiens passioni Domini esse communicandum, 
et suaviter atque utiliter in memoria condendum, quod caro 
ejus pro nobis crucifixa et vulnerata est. 

c . . . . Hoc est opus Dei, ut credatis in eum quern misit 
ille. Hoc est ergo manducare cibum non qui perit, sed qui 
permanet in vitam aeternam. Ut quid paras dentes et ven- 
trem ? Crede et manducasti. 

d Denique jam exponit quomodo id fiat quod loquitur, et 
quid sit manducare corpus ejus, et sanguinem bibere. Qui 
manducat, etc. Hoc est ergo manducare illam escam et ilium 
bibere potum, in Christo manere, et ilium manentem in se 
habere. Ac per hoc qui non manet in Christo et in quo non 
manet Christus, proculdubio nee manducat [spiritaliter] car- 
nem ejus, nee bibit ejus sanguinem [licet carnaliter et visibil- 
iter premat dentibus sacramentum corporis et sanguinis 
Christi;] sed magis tantoe rei sacramentum ad judicium sibi 
manducat et b ;x '" 

31* 



366 APPENDIX. 

e Hnnc loctim veteres interpretantiir de doctrina coilesti. 

f Kai to (Xsv, sis critfnv snwp^si, to xpa^ia . . . . vjg 01 xarct 
criC-riv (josrctXa^/SavovTS^, ayia^ovrai jcco c*wp,a xai %^j^v. 

B . . . . 'Ev TfTW y«p apTov, <5»5ot«j tfof to tfw/j.tt * xai sv 
Wfl oivou, 5»5oTai tfo» to ai/xar iva ysv/j, {xsraXa/iwv CGJ/jiaros 
xai kj/juxtos Xpitfroy, CuCcTw.aog xai (Tuvai.aos aurou. 

LETTER V. 

A 'H a'K'o^sia 6s oux ev tcj jxsTaTiSsvaj <ra rfy)(xaivo(Atva supjC- 
jcsrar out*/ jjlsv yap ava-Tps-v^oytfj iraffav ahrfey) dido.tixoikiav aXX 
sv tw ^jafT/cSv^affSai t» tw Kup«w xai <rw tfavToxparopi ©sw tsXsjw£ 
ojxSjov ts xai crpsrov • Jt'av tw /3sj8aict/v sxatf-Tov t«vv a<7ro(5£ixvu{Jisvwv 
xara Ta£ ypoKpag, e% airwv craXiv t«v o^.oj#v ypa(pwv. 

LETTER VI. 

A Loquebatur enim de preesentia corporis sui. 

Nam secundum majestatem suam, secundum providentiam, 
secundum ineffabilem et invisibilem gratiam impletur quod 
ab eo dictum est; Ecce ego vobiscum sum usque in consum- 
mationem seculi! Secundum carnem vero quam verbum as- 
sumpsit, secundum id quod devirgine natus est, secundum 
id quod a Judseis prehensus est, quod ligno crucifixus, quod 
de cruce depositus, quod linteis involutus, quod in sepulchro 
conditus, quod in resurrectione manifestatus non semper hab- 
ebitis vobiscum. Quare? Quoniam conversatus est secun- 
dum prsesentiam quadraginta diebus cum diseipulis suis, et 
eis deducentibus videndo non sequendo, ascendit in ccelum, 
et non est hie. 

Bl Ou(5a|Xov T7]£ rcjv (pufl'swv 5ia(popa§ av/i^jaev^c: 6ia ttjv svwtfw, 
Gu^o^svrig 5s (uuxXAov rv\g »&ott]tos sxccrspag (pvfJe&s, km Sig sv 
crpo^wrav, Jca» jtwav i wrro(fra(fiv ffuvrps^outfrjs. 

c Quoniam extra potentiam Dei nihil est, idcirco omnia po- 
test Omnia enim qusecunque voluit Dominus fecit, in 

ccelo et in terra. 

Et quid voluit, licet figura panis et vini hie sit, omnino 
nihil aliud quam caro Christi et sanguis post consecrationem 
credenda sunt. 






APPENDIX. 367 

Unde ipsa Veritas ad discipulas. W; 

Haec, in quit, caro mea est pro mundi vita. 

Et ut mirabilius loquar, non alia plane, quam quae nata est 
de Maria, et passa in cruce, et resurrexit de sepulchre-. Hsec, 
inquam, ipsa est, et ideo Christi caro est, quae pro mundi vita 
adhuc hodie oflfertur. 

D Plane nihil Deo difficile. Sed si tarn abrupte in prae- 
sumptionibus nostris hac sententia utamur, quidvis de Deo 
contingere poterimus, quasi fecerit, quiafacere potuerit. Non 
autem quia omnia potest facere, ideo utique credendum est 
ilium fecisse, etiam quod non fecerit, sed an fecerit, inquiren- 
dum. Potuit, ita salvus sim, Deus pennis hominem ad volan- 
dum instruxisse, quod et milvis pra3stitit; non tamen quia 
potuit, statim et fecit. Potuit et Praxeam, et omnes pariter 
haereticos statim extinxisse; non tamen quia potuit, extinxit. 
.... Hac ratione erit aliquid et difficile Deo; id scilicet 
quodcunque non fecerit, non quia non potuerit, sed quia nol- 
uerit. Dei enim posse, velle est; et non posse, nolle. 

£ Kai ovx eig aTOTrw-rar'/jv re ovo.yjap r r\tf\v ava^wpou^sv, \syov- 
rsg on <7rav tivvo.rov rot @sw .... ^afjt-sv tis or» 6v tivvvarot 
o.i&%po 6 0coj, sttsi stfrai 6 ©eoj, ovx sffri Qsog .... xcut 
7)/u.5ig Xsyo^isv, oti o'u (3qv\stou to, <7rapa <pbtffv 6 Qsog, out£ ro, 
o.7ro xoxio.g, ovts ro. aXayar yjvofxsvof si tis ro. xo.ro. Xoyov Gsov 
xxi j3ov\t)tJiv avrou yjvo/Xsva oMa.yxu.iac, exjBsag swioi ^t) iropa, 
(pvtfiv ou rrapo. ©yrfiv ro. irporroiievct viro rov 0eou, jc' av rrapa.- 
tia%et %; rj tioxovvra, ritft irapo.8o%a.. E/ tie ^pjj /3s/3ja<7jX£ vug 
ovo^asett' Spoa/xsv. ort eog irpoi rijv xoivorspav vovixevvv (purfiv 
Sin <nva vitep mv <pv(fiv a iroi9j(fon ocv nore @e oj, imp rov av3-- 
poj-7T<v7]v (pyrf/v uvafiifBa^ojv tov otv^patfov, xai noiav ayrov [ksrctr 
(SaXkStv em (pj(7-<v x.pe\rrovct xxi 'hetorspav. 

F Patet quod ille modus est possibilis, nee repugnat rationi, 
nee auctoritati Bibliae, imo est facilior ad intelligendum et 
rationabilior quam aliquis aliorum. 

G Scotus dicit non extare locum ullum Scripturse tarn expres- 
sum, utsine declaratione ecclesiae, evidenter cogat transub- 
stantionem admittere, et id non omnino improbabile. 

H Alteram quod evangelium non explicavit expresse, ab 
ecclesia accepimus, scilicet, conversionem panis in corpus 
Christi non explicate habetur in Evangelio .... Non appa- 
ret ex Evangelio coactivum aliquod ad intelligendum h;ec 
verba proprie, nempe, Hoc est corpus meum; imo praesentia ilia 



368 APPENDIX, 

in Sacramento, quam tenet ecclesia. ex his verbis Christi, non 
potest demonstrari, nisi etiam accesserit ecclesise declaratio. 



LETTER VII. 

A Harum et aliarum ejusmodi disciplinarmn, si leges expos- 
tules scripturarum, nullam invenies. 

Traditio tibi preetenditnr auctrix,consuetudoconfirinatrix, 
et fides observatrix. 

B Ad hoc malornm devoluta est Ecclesia Dei et sponsa 
Christi, . . . . nt ad celebranda sacramenta ccelestia, discip- 
linam lux de tenebris mutuetur, et id faciimt Christiani, 
quod Antichristi faciunt. 

c 'Oi/x ac, Usrpos x-vu HaSkos Siara&cfopai djxjv. 'Exsjvo/ 
ewrotfToXoi l7]tfoy Xpitfroy, syu 5s eXcr^tf-Tog". 

D Nihil in his ut verbis meis credatur exposco, nisi testes 
idoneos dedero. Ipsum vobis Dominum, et Salvatoreni nos- 
trum Jesum Christum testem horum et auctorem dabo. 

E M?]<5e Sfj.oi tw Taura tfo» Xsyovri a<ffX«»£ <rr\tf<rev6ris, sav rr\v 
o.nodsifyv <rav xarayy sKhop&JUV onto twv Ssiwv [u\ Xa/3*}<r ypacpav 
% <Sa"t\p\a yap aorrj <rys irufrsug v^iuiv ovx s% svpSffikoyiag, aXXa 
s% anode igswv <rwv Setwv etfn ypacp&v. 

F Quod genus literarum, non cum credendi necessitate, sed 
cum judicandi libertate legendum est ... . Sed nullo modo 
illi sacratissimse canonicarum Scripturarum excellentise coae- 
qnantur, etiam in quibusc unique eorum invenitur eadem Ver- 
itas, longe tamen est impar auctoritas. 

G Scio me aliter habere Apostolas ; aliter reliquos tractato- 
res; illos semper vera dicere; istos in quibusdam, ut homines 



n Erraverunt in fide alii, tarn Grseci quam Latini, quorum 
non necesse est proferre noniina, ne videamur eum, non sui 
merito sed aliorum errore, defendere. 

1 StfoufSa^fTS ouv tfvxvorepov rfuvsp^srfSai stgsvy(api(friav Osov, 
xai <5ogav otkv yecp rfyvs^j Sw» to avro ysvstfSrS, xaSaipot/vrai 
a» ^yvafxsig ffarava, xa.i a<Kpux~a aurou s-tt itfTpSipsi ra <K'£Tupw[/,Sva. 
/3sXig tfpog affcapr/av. 



APPENDIX. 369 

J . . . . kvct aprov xXwvtss, o sCtj (pap.uoaxov aSavatfiag, avT»5o- 
tc£ tou fxrj atfoSavouv, aXXa ^v sv 0£U Jia \r\tfov Xpitfrou. 

K Vos igitur mansuetam patientiam resumentes recreate 
vosmetipsos in fide quod est caro Domini, et in charitate quod 
est sanguis Iesu Christi. Nullus vestrum adversus proximum 
aliquid habeat. 

h 'Ou yap wg xoivov #prov ovSs xoivov wojxa Taura Xajx/3avo/XfV 
aXX ov Tpotfov <5ia Xo^ou O^ou o-apxo<7roiT)3-£i£ I»;tfous Xpiff-ros 6 
2wT7jp rjfju^v, xai tfapxa xai a/fjux u<rep tfwT/jp/as yjjxwv g^sv, outgj£ 
xai ttjv <S< eu^rjg \oyov tou tfetp' ayrou si>xapi0rr]Sei(J'av Tpotpirjv, 
eg rjs a<(xa xai tfapxeg xara (xsrcc/ooXigv Tpstpovrai -i^fxojv, sxsivou 
<rov CapxotfoiJjScVTOs I^Cow xai (Tapxa xai aijxa e<5i<$«j£SfTf}fASv eivai . . . 

M . . . . Oirors ouv xai to xsxpafxevov <jroT7]piov, xai o ysyovag 
aorog s-7T»(5s^5rai tov Xoyov tow 0sov, xai yivsrai r\ ev%api(f<ria 
CwfAa XpitfTo», s» toutwv 6s ecvget xcu tfyviffTaTai ■>? T*jg tfapxos 
•yj/xwv virodTOLdtg. 

y Cum gratias egisset, tenens calicem, et bibisset ab eo, et 
dedisset discipulis, dicebat eis. Bibite ex eo omnes. 

° . . . . Sic enim Deus in Evangelio quoque vestro revela- 
vit panem corpus suum appellans, ut et hinc jam eum intelli- 
ga9 corporis sui figuram pani dedisse cujus retro corpus in 
panem Prophetes figuravit, ipso Domino hoc sacramentum 
postea interpretaturo. 

p Sedille quidem usque nunc nee aquam reprobavit Crea- 
toris, qua suos abluit, nee oleum, quo suos unguit, nee mellis 
et lactis societatem, qua suos infantat nee panem quo ipsum 
corpus suum reprsesentat; etiam in sacramentis propriis egens 
mendicitatibus Creatoris. 

Q Acceptum panem, et distributum discipulis, corpus ilium 
suum fecit, hoc est corpus meum dicendo, id est, figura corpo- 
ris mei. Figura autem non fuisset, nisi veritatis esset cor- 
pus. Ceterum, vacua res, quod est phantasma figuram capere 
non posset. 

Aut si propterea panem corpus sibi finxit, quia corporis 
carebat veritate: ergo panem debuit tradere pro nobis. Fa- 
ciebat ad vanitatem Marcionis, ut panis crucifigeretnr .... 
Itaque illuminator antiquitatum, quid tunc voluerit signifi- 
casse panem, satis declaravit, corpus suum vocans panem. 
Sic et in calicis mentione testamentum constituens sanguine 



370 . APPENDIX. 

suo obsignatum, substantiam corporis confirmavit. Kullins 
enim corporis sanguis potest esse, nisi earn is. Nam et si qua 
corporis qualitas non carnea opponetur nobis, certe sangui- 
nem nisi carnea non habebit. Ita consistit j)robatio corporis 
de testimonio carnis; probatio carnis de testimonio sangui- 
nis. 

R Proinde panis et calicis sacramento jam in Evangelio 
probaviraus corporis, et sanguinis dominici veritatem, adver- 
sus phantasma Marcionis. 

s Marcion phantasma enm maluit credere, totius corporis 
in illo dedignatus veritatem. 

T Aittov 6s to ai,aa tov Kupioa" to fjisv yap stfTiv auTou dap- 
xixov Cj Trjg (pSopag XsXvrpu/^s^a' to de <7rvsufjt,aTixov, TeuetfTiv u 
xs^pitffXsSce. Kai tout' effTi ineiv to awjxa Toy Irjo-oy Tr\g xupiax7]g 
/xsTaXa/3siv oKp^ctpGias' iffyys Ss Toy Aoyou to tfvsufxa, wg cci^a 
Gxp'tog. AvaXoywg tivuv xipvaTai 6 jxsv oivog, tw u<5aTi* tw 8s 
av^pwrw, to crveufxa* xai to fxsv, gig <7rio J Tiv cuw^sj, to xpa.^ec* to 
5c, sig a(p$apo"iav o<5v)ysi, to itvtv^o.* r\ Ss a/xpoiv au^ig xpatfig, 
iroTov ts xa» Aoyou, E y^apioVia xexkyTai, X a P'? saraivoufASv?) xai 
xaX?)* ^g oi xotTa critfTiv (A5T«eXafA/3avovT£g, ayia^ovTai xai tfwjxa 
xai -v^u^v to Ssiov xpafxa, tov av^pwrov, tou iraTptxov /SouX^a- 
Tog ^-vsu/tcaTi x#i Aoyw tfuyxipvouvTog /xytfTixwg. 

u . . . . Eu yap KjtS, |XSTsXa/3sv oivou xai etvTog, xai yap 
avSpwirog xai anTog. K-ai suXoyyjtfSv ys tov oivev, sittwv, Aa/3eTS, 
•ffiSTs* Toyro fj-ou sariv to aijxa, aifjta TV]g afj/jreXou. Tov Xoyov, 
tov crspi flfoXXwv cx^sojxsvov Sig apstfiv afJiapriwv, suppotfuvrjg ayiov 
«XXr/yopsi vafxet. K<ai oti fxsv (Jatppovsiv tov «tivovt« 5si 5i wv 
S^i^etCxsv ^rapaTag Suw^'ag s<Scifev tfa^wg* ou yap fxsSuwv s8i6u(f- 
xav. On 5s oivog rv to eyXoy^^sv, a'Tf^sifs waXiv, irpog Toug 
fJt-aS^Tag Xtywv Ou fXij tiw sx tou ysvvrjfjuxrog cifjg a/xtfeXou 
TauTrjg, |Xe^pig av flriw auTO (jisS'ujxwv sv ttj /SatfiXsia Toy IlaTpog 
fjooy. 

AXX oti ye oivog ^v to <ff»vofjosvov <n-pog tou Kupieu, tfaXiv ecvTog 
irspi sauTou Xeysi, tjjv Iou&xiwv Stfovei&^wv tfxX^poxap&av • • 
HXSsv yap (pvjciv, 6 uiog roy avSpwrou, xai Xsyoue-iv l5oy 
«v?rpw7rog (payog x«ti oivoTTOTyjg, ts^wvwv (piXog. Touti fxev r)(xiv 
xai Trpog Toug EyxpaTrjTag xaXoujxevoug irapa<KS'ir'i)')fiu, 

v Ei yap xai to u<5wp oivov Sv TOig y««,aoig ^S^oirjxsv, oux s^st- 
p;\j^£ {ASSuSlv. 



APPENDIX. 371 

w Ojvoj Ss oX»yw XP W > ^ T»/xoSsw u^po'jroTouvrj, &a c-TOfxa^ov 
tfou, pyja'iv 6 AffotfToXoff. 

X E»#\ wj ouroi paa'jv atfapxoj «ai ava<|xo£ ^v <7roias tfapxoc:, ^ 
tivo£ tfw/xaro?, ^ tojou ajjxaros sixova? ($»<5ou£, aprov ts xai tfoTT}- 
p»ov, svtsXXsto roi£ (xa^Tjrai^, &cx toutwv ttjv eeva|M/jj<rjv at/rot/ 

Y Ubi vero tempus advenit cruris suae, et aceessurus erat ad 
altare ubi immolaret hostiam carnis suae accipiens, inquit, 
calicem, benedixit, et dedit discipulis suis dicens; Accipite, 
et bibite ex hoc. Vos, inquit, bibite, qui modo accessuri non 
estis ad altare. Ipse autem tanquam aceessurus ad altare, 
dicitdese; Amen dico vobis, etc. 

Z E» 6s itolv to Sfftfopsvoflsvov sig to cVo^a, sig xojXtav %cop£i xo.i 
sig ctipsSpuva. sx/3aXXsra», xai to ayja£o/xsvov /3pa>jxa 6ia. Xoyou 

©SOU XOLl SVT5f£cW£, XtXT OLVTO (XSV TO t/XjXOV St£ T7]V XOlXjav ^Wp£l, 

xai s»g etysdpava. 5«/3aXXerar xcwa <5s ttjv £iriysvo[XSvriv olvtm 
su^jjv, x«t« tjjv avaXoyiav tjjj criflVswcr, w<psXif/,ov yivsrou «a» t^ 
toi» voou flMTioy 5»a/3Xs>psw£, opwvToj stti to cocpsXouv x#j oi% '/j uX»; 
tow aprov, aXK 6 sw' atiru s»pj?^svog Xoj/og go-T»v 6 »(psXwv tov 
fA'O avJifyus tou Kwpjov S0-S»ovTa otyTov. Kai ravra ^Sv itsot 
to*/ Tycrtxou, xai tfujx/BoXixoy tfoj^aroj. 

a . . . . Nam cum dicat Christus : Ego sum vitis vera ; san- 
guis Christi, non aqua est utique, sed vinum. Nee potest videri 
sanguis ejus, quo redempti et vivificati sumus, esse in calice, 
quando vinum desit calici, quo Christi sanguis ostenditur. 

.... Nam quis magis secerdos Dei summi, quam Domi- 
nus noster Iesus Christus? qui sacrificium Deo patri obtulit, 
et obtulit hoc idem quod Melchisedech obtulerat, id est, pa- 

nem et vinum, suum scilicit corpus et sanguinem Cse- 

terum omnis religionis et veritatis disciplina subvertitur, nisi 
id quod spiritaliter prsecipitur, et fideliter reservetur, nisi si 
in sacrificiis matutinis hoc quis veretur ne per saporem vini 
redoleat sanguinem Christi. 



LETTER VIII. 

A Ta Cu(x/3oXa Trig evSsou ojxovojxhxs tois aurou Traps6i6ou jxa&rj- 
rang Trjy sixova tou »5iou tfWfAttTog tfojSitfSai tfapaxtXst/ojxsvos. 



372 APPENDIX. 

b Toutou §y\Tct tod &ujxaro£ <rv\v (avtjjxtjv gtfi rpa'Tg^rjj svrsXsiv, 
via tfufA/SoXwv rours <fu>ixuTog au-rou xai <rou CajTrjpjou ai^arog xara 
SsCjaous t?j£ xaiv/jff <5ja^7]x*ja flrapsiXij<porS£. 

.... Kai on gv T7) gxxXyjtfia •Tr'poa'pgpSTai ap-ros xai oivo£, 
avTjru<7rov t/]£ tfapxoj co/toii xai tou ajjxaroj* xai 01 (Xt<raXafx/3a- 
vovTg£ sx tou (paivo/xcvoy aprov, tfvsujxa-rjxws cr]v tfapxa tou Kupiou 

SO w SlOUO"'l. 

D Ev Tutfw ^ap aprou, 5i<Wai tfoi to Cw/xa, xai gv Tutfw oivou, &<5o« 
rat tfoi to a*/xa' »va ygvr], psraXufiuv cfu^arog xai ai/i-aTos Xpirf- 
tod oWCw/xog xai tfuvai/jiog aureu. 

E Mg-raXTj-vJ^agS* tou tiad^a vuv /xgv Tutfixods sti, xai li Tot/ 
craXotioy yt/fw/orspov. To ^ap vo/juxov tfaC^a, toXjxw xai Xgyw 
vvirov rwrrog rjv aixvSpoTSpog. 

F Fac nobis hanc oblationem ascriptam, rationabilem accep- 
tabilem quod est figura corporis et sanguinis Domini nostri 
Jesu Christi. 

GDupliciter vero sanguis Christi et caro intelligitur : 
spiritualis ilia atque divina, de qua ipse dixit : Caro mea vere 
est cibus, et sanguis meus vere est potus: et, nisi nianducav- 
eritis carnem meam .... vel caro et sanguis, quae crucifixa 
est, et qui militis effusus est lancea. 

H De hac quidem. hostia quae in commemorationem m i rabil- 
iter fit, edere licet. De ilia vera quam Christus in ara crucis 
obtulit, secundum se, nulli edere licet. 

1 In typo sanguinis sui non obtulit aquam, sed vinum. 

J Cum adhibuit ad convivium in quo corporis et sanguinis 
sui figuram discipulis commendavit et tradidit. 

K Dominus non dubitavit dicere, Hoc est enim corpus meum 
cum daret signum corporis sui. 

L Tunc autem hoc erit, id est, vita unicuique erit corpus et 
sanguis Christi; si quod in sacramento visibiliter sumiter, in 
ipsa veritate spiritualiter manducetur, spiritualiter bibatur. 

M Potest sacramentum adoptionis adoptio nuncupari, sicut 
sacramentum corporis et sanguinis ejus quod est in pane et 
poculo consecrato corpus ejus, et sanguinem dicimus. Non 






APPENDIX. 373 

quod proprie corpus ejus sit panis, et poculum sanguis, sed 
quod in se mysterium corporis ejus et sanguinis contineant. 
Hinc et ipse Dominus benedictum panem et calicem, quern 
discipulis tradidit corpus et sanguinem suum vocavit. 

N Panis quia confirmat corpus, ideo Christi corpus nuncu- 
patur ; vinum autem, quia sanguinem operatur in carne, ideo 
ad sanguinem Christi refertur. Haec autem duo sunt visibilia, 
sanctiiicata autem per Spiritum sanctum in sacramentum di- 
vini corporis transeunt. 

°Loco carnis et sanguinis agni, substituit Christus sacra- 
mentum carnis suae et sanguinis in figura panis et vini. 

p Dedit in cceno discipulis figuram sacrosancti corporis et 
sanguinis sui. 

Q Tov sva yap xa» tov avrov Si wv g<prj|X5v xou -\>y\Ka(pr\rif\v 
ouoVxv S^cjv xou a-^r/Xouprjrov avsxr)pv|s .... AXX ovdiig av 
eiTSjv dvvura.1 vow £^wv ug r\ avrr\ (pvffig -^TjXoKpyjTou xa» a-^rjXa- 
(prjTOf, xai oparou xa» aoparou. Outoj xai to irupa tojv tjCtwv 
Xa(x/3avofA£vov tfw/xa XpjtfTov, xai <rr]j aio"^7)T7]£ wtfiag oux s|io*- 
Taraj. Kai <nj£ vo^tt^ a&aips-rov fjuvsi ^ap»ro£. Kai to (3a<x- 
rrtpa Ss rfvSvix.oLTixcv 6'Xov ysvo/xovov xai ev u<7rap^ov, xa» to k5iov 
7r,g u.iG^r\7f\s outfia^, tow vdarog Xs^oj, <5ja7w^s», xou o ysyovsv 
ovx ctirwXsrfsv. 

R Deus et homo Christus; Deus propter impassibilitatem, 
homo propter passionem. Unus Filius, unus Dominus, idem 
ipse proculdubio unitarum naturarum unam dominationem, 
unam potestatem possidens, etiamsinon consubstantiales exis- 
tunt, et unaquseque incommixtarn proprietatisconservatagni- 
tionem, propter hoc quod inconfusa sunt [duo] dico. Sicut 
enim antequam sanctilicetur Panis, Panem nominamus, divina 
antem ilium sanctificante gratia, mediante sacerdote, libera- 
tus est quidem appellatione panis dignus autem habitus est 
dominici corporis appellatione, etiamsi natura panis in ipso 
permansit, et non duo corpora, sed unus corpus iilii prsedica- 
tur. Sic et hie divina, sviflputfatfyj?, id est, inundante corporis 
natura, unum filium, unam personam, utraque hsec fecerunt. 

sCerte sacramenta quae sumimus, corporis et sanguinis 
Christi, divina res est, propter quod et per eadem divince effic- 
imur consortes naturae ; et tarn en esse non desinit substantia 
vel natura panis et vini ; et certe imago et similitudo corporis 
et sanguinis Christi in actione mysteriorum celebrantur. 
32 



374 APPENDIX. 

Satis ergo nobis evidenter ostenditur, hoc nobis in ipso 
Christo Domino sentiendum, quod in ejus imagine profitemur, 
celebramus et sumimus; ut sicut in hanc, scilicet, in divinam 
transeunt spiritu sancto perficiente substantiam, permanente 
tamen in sua proprietate natura, sic illud ipsum mysterium 
principale, cujus nobis efficientiam virtuteinque veraciter 
reprsesentant, ex quibus constat proprie permanentibus unum 
Christum, quia integrum verumque permanere. 

T Tw fxsv tfwjixari to tou tfv jx/3oXou <r&sixsv ovojm-a, <rw 8s tfupt^oXw 
to tou (fatuc&Tog .... Ovrog tcc opw/xsva tfu[A/3oXa tjj tou Cwju,- 
cltos xai aijjoarog crpotfTjyopia Terj^xsv, ou T'/]v (putfiv fjiSTa/3aXwv, 
aXXa T'/jv ^apiv ttj (pu^ai vrpotisheMug. 

u . . . . Ou yap x«Ta Toy ayiatf/xov to ju-uoVixa tfu/x/SoXa ttjs 
oixsias sgicfTaTOd (putfsws' f/,sv£i yap Siri t<7T£ <jrpoTepa£ ovtfiag xai 
tou (f-^ri^aTos xai tou si^ous 1 xai opaTa so"ti xai a^Ta, 01a xai 
•jrpoTSpov ^v. 

KosjTai 8s airsp sysvSTo, xai ffitfTSuSTai xai tfpopaivsiTai w£ 
SxSiva 6Wa airsp icHfTSv&rat. 

y . . . . Quemadmodum enim qui est a terra panis percip- 
iens invocationem Dei, jam non communis panis est, sed eu- 
charistia, ex duabus rebus constans, terrena et ccelesti : Sic et 
corpora nostra percipientia eucharistiam, jam non sunt cor- 
ruptibilia, spem resurrectionis habentia. 

w Tjxsij 8s (xt/pw s^pirf^?)<rs, xoivojvoi xai juisto^oi rav XpioVou 
ysvo/xsvoi. AXX' opa (ajj ysrovo^o'jjs- sksivo to ^ivpov -vJwXov 
sivai* utfnsp xai 6 a prog t?)£ Eu^apitfTiaj. (XSTa ttjv stixXtjCiv 
tou ayiov rEvsuf^aToc, oux sri ap<ro£ Xito? aXXa Cw|xa XpioVou* 
outw xai to ayiov touto jz-upov, ou* sri ^iXov, ou(T ug av siiroi Tig 
xoivov fXtT' srixX^Civ, aXXa Xpio"Tou ~^a.pid\ka» 

x . . . . *0 apT0£ craXiv apT0£ sCti tsw£ xoivog* aXX' oTav 
aurov to jU.uo*T7]pioy ispovpyy&r], tfoj(xa X^itfTou XsySTai rs xai 
ytvSTOU. OuTwg to fxutf-nxov sXaiov, outwc: a oivo£, oXiyou tivoj 
af /a evTa ^-po ttjs S\j\oy lag' (Xcra tov ayiaff/xov tov tou meuiia- 
to£, sxarspov ay-rwv evspysi <5ia<pcpwc:. H auTij (5s <rou Xoyou 
<5uvafjuj, xai tov ispsa croisi c-sjxvov xai tijlmov, ttj xoivottjti ?r\g 
Sv'koyiag T7j£ 5rpo£ roug ttoXXou£ xoivot/jtos ^wpj^ofXtvov. x. t. X. 

Y Kai 6 <*pT0£ xai to sXaiov ayia^STai <rr\ 5uvafxsi tou ovo/xaros, 
ou to. auTa fava xar<* to (paivo^svoy o«a giXrjipS-/], aXXa. (5waf/*s» 



APPENDIX. 375 

sig 5uv«(X«v wvsufxanx^v (X£Ta/3s/3Xif]Tai. Ovrug xai t><5wp xai to 
s|e ^xi£ofjosvov xai to [3aifrt(fu.a yivofASvov, ou jxovov p^wpsj to p^sipov, 
aXXa xai ayiatf/xov rfpo<fha.fi[3avu. 



LETTEK IX. 

A Postrema verba, quibus cavetur, ne octo Libri constitutio- 
num Apostolicarum publicentur, aperte indicant, eas primis 
sa?culis factas non esse, cum primi sseculi Christiani sua 
lubentes Mysteria, ut vel ex Justine- constat, enuntiarent. 

B Acta de Mysteriis silentia non agebant Apostoli, nee cat- 
ecliumenos arcebant sacrainentorum conspectu. 

c Ex forma omnibus mysteriis selentii fides adhibetur. 

D Ad baptisterium catechumeni nunquam admittendi. 

E To Ss Tpig /3a<7rTi£;tfSai rov avSpwrov, toSsv ; AXXa <5s off a 
•rspi to [SxirrHfiux, .... "A yap ovSs sttwtsiiSiv sjjeflri roig 
apvr\roig. 

F Quid est quod occultum est, et non publicum in Ecclesia ? 
Sacramentum baptismi, sacramentum Eucharistise. Opera 
nostra bona vident et pagani, sacramenta vero occultantur 
illis. 

G Ep(Si£ tod (Xu^Trjpjou ra sx(popa, xai Tai£ twv tfoXXwv axoajg 
oux aTTopp'/jrai ra 8s aXXa sitfc; jx«S*jtfr]. 

H EuXoyou|asv 8s to ts u5wp tou iSairriff^arog, xai to sXaiov 

1 IIspi tou (XT] 8siv rag p£?ipoTovia£ sin tfapovcfia Jxxpow^tSvwv 

J Kai o jxsXXwv p^sipoTovsiv, xai Tag sxsivwv su^as *aXsi tots, 
xai auToi g"7ri^y](pi^ovTai, xai sti^owCiv a^rsp la^iv oi jxsjxut](Jisvoi* 
ou yap 6r\ hspig s<ki twv afXu^Twv sxxaXu<7rTSiv a^avTa. 

K Kai yap Ta jxurfTYjpia <W touto Taj St/pa? xXsitfavrsg STriTf- 
Xouf^Sv, xai Toug a/JMirjTouj SipyojxSv. 

L Tat/T-/;» 5s tt]v •ffpotfsir^v 6v tou.c a/ctu?}roii£, aXXa T0t>g 
(XuCTaywyouf/.svoug (JtrSaffxoasv. Ou(5si£ yap t&jv ajxuijTwv Xsysiv 



376 APPENDIX. 

ToX/xa, Tla.TSp ^fjt-wv 6 ev toi£ oupavoi£, (xn^w (5f|af/.£vo£ r^ 
i/ioSstfjag to ^apia^a. 'O (5s rrj? tou [3 atria pur og tstu^xws 
<5wpsag crarspa xaXsi tov ©sov. 

M . . . . Ov5s yap Svvarov xaX£rfa» liccrzpa tov ©gov, jxrj 
tfavTojv £xs»vwv StfJTu^ovTa twv ayaSwv. 

N On yap tfKfroig aurrj rj fl-potfeu^yj tfpotfrjxsi, xai o« vojxoj ttjj 
'Exxkyariag 8t8a(fxov(ft f xat to crpooifAiov <rv\g Su^^. 'O yap 
a[k\)Y\T% oux av 6uva»To I7aT£pa x#Xs«v <rov ©£ov. 

. . . . Kai yap Ta fJ/jtfTrjpja <5ja touto Taj §upag xXsjrfavTSg 
£-7riT£Xouffc£v, xai Toug apuyToug e»pyojasv oux s^si^ affSsvsiav 
xaTsyvwjxsv, twv TSXoujasvajv, aXX Sirsidr) arsXetfrs pov oi croXXoi 
cr^os auTa sti (5<ax£»vTai. 

p Ou 2£pvj yap Ta (XuflViipia, a[Ativ]Toi£ rpayw<5£iv, jva fjt/q EXXvj- 
v£j (X£v ayvoouvT££ y£Xwo*», xaT/j^o'j/Xfvoi (5s wspispyoi ysvo(xsvoi, 
rxav<5aX»£wvTa/. 

Q TauTa Ta fcuflVigpia vuv t» sxxX^tfja <5»£ys»Tai tw sx xart\yj 
OUjXSVWV fX£TT/3{*XXof/<£VW. Oux £0TJV &og s^vixoig <5i»jysjo"Sai. 

X. T. X. 

R De Iudseis autem praecepit S. Synodus, nemini deinceps 
ad credendum vini inferri Qui autem jam pridem ad 

Christian itatem venire coacti sunt, sicut factum est tempori- 
bus religiosissimi principis Sisebuti, quia jam constat, eos 
sacramentis divinis sociatos, et baptismi gratiam suscipisse, 
et chrismate unctos esse, et corporis Domini et sanguinis ex- 
istisse participes, oportet, ut fidem etiam, quam vi vel neces- 
sitate susceperunt, tenere cogantur, ne nomen Domini blas- 
phemetur, et fides quam susceperunt, vilis ac contemptibilis 
habeatur. 

s . . . . Outos o "koyog rr\g twv aypacpwv tfapadotfeug. us pr\ 
xaTa(XsXy)^£itfav twv ^oyfJt-a-Twv tt]v yvwtfiv £iixaTa<ppovy]rov toi£ 
<toXXoj£ ysvso"Sai 8ia tfu'?]$s/av. 

T . . . . Quia et si non eis fidelium sacramenta produntur, 
non ideo sit quod ea ferre non possunt, sed ut ab eis tanto 
ardentius concupiscantur, quanto eis honorabilius occultan- 
tur. 

u Fidelibus loquor, si quid non intelligunt catechumeni, 
auferant pigritiam, festineant ad notitiam. Non ergo opus 



APPENDIX. 377 

est mysteria promere ; Scripturee vobis intiment, quid est sa- 
cerdotium secundum ordinem Melchisedec. 



LETTER X. 

A To (xutfriipiov ouv tou itpo(3arou o to tfafl^ce §vsiv svrsraKrai 
6 Qsog, *Kv<k% 7}V tou Xpi o-tov . . . . xai r\ tvjS tfSfAj^aXsws 6s 
irpotfcpopa .... rvrfos yv tou aproy T7]£ euy^apidrmg .... 
aXXa xai to dudsxa, xw^wvas s£>](pSai tou <7ro($7jpo&£ tou a^»spsw£ 
<n-apa<Ss$oo*Sa», twv <5oj<5sxa affoaroXwv c-u(Jo/3oXov. 

B Ev tw irava^iw SaitrKf^an rov tuttov opw,usv t^j avaflrao'sws, 
tots <5s auTyjv o-^w/xs^a ttjv aradradiv EvTauSa Ta cu/x/^oXa 

TOU <$;0'<7rOTjXOU ©SWJAsSa tfw/AGCTOS, SXSl <5s OtUTOV O-vJ^WfASSa tov 
^StftfOTiqV. 

c . . . . De quo conficitur panis Domini, et sanguinis ejus 
impletur typus, et benedictio sanctificationis ostenditur. 

D Dedit itaque Dominus noster in mensa in qua ultimum 
cum Apostolis participavit convivium, propriis manibus pa- 
nem et vinum ; in cruce vero manibus militum corpus tradi- 
dit vulnerandum ut in Apostolis secretins impressa sincera 
Veritas, et vera sinceritas, exponeret gentibus quo modo vi- 
num et panis caro esset et sanguis, et qui bus rationibus causae 
effectibus convenirent, et diversa nomina vel species ad unam 
reducerentur essentiam, et significantia et significata eisdem 
vocabulis censerentur. 

^ Imago veritate non usquequaqe adsequabitur ; aliud enim 
est secundum veritatem esse, aliud ipsam veritatem esse. 

F Neque enim sibi ipsi quisquam imago est. 

G Nemo potest sibi ipsi imago fuisse. 

H Oux s=ri yap otv sjxojv s» <$»' GttfavTwv str\ <rauTov sxsivw. 

1 Quid absurdius quam imaginem ad se dici ? 

J Figura non est Veritas, sed imitatio veritatis. 

K '0 <Ss Tutfog oux aX?]S*»a, jxop(pwrfiv de /agcXXov Tr)£ <xkrfisiag 
Zitfcpspsi. 

32* 



378 APPENDIX. 

L Pignus et Imago alterius rei sunt, id est, non ad se, sed 
ad aliud aspiciunt. 

M Hv ttotc Sixcuotfvvri, rjv xai orf»oT7)g s<?ri Ioy<5a»wv aXX ou «njff 
aX-jjSsjaj, aXXa too tutou 75 ^ixajotfuv*} sxsjvt?, To yap xa^apov 
Sivai tfu/xaTi tuto.c xaSra^oT7)<ro£ ^v ou^i aX»jSsja xaSapo<rr,<ro£* 
TUTrog ^ixaiotfuvrjff rjv, o'j^i aX?]Ssja (Jjxaiotfuvj»s. 

N HcpoSpa aiiTr\g xa-ctSsstfTSpa, xai <roo"oi/Tov, orfov g^jasiov <rou 
irpayixarog owrrsp s&ri (fr^siov. 

°Hic umbra, hie imago, illic Veritas. Umbra in lege, ima- 
go in evangelio, Veritas in ccelestibus. 

p Ascende ergo, homo, in ccelum, et videbis ilia quorum 
umbra hie erat vel imago. 

Q Msra yap 8r) <rr\v avrou <7rotpoi>o J jav. ovx sri XP Sia TWV ^jx/Jo- 
Xwv tou Cw/xaro^, au<rou cpuivopsvov <rou Cw/xarog. 

E Ayia <5oopa — 2u{X,3oXa twv avw xai aX7]Sivorepwv. 

8 2x»a yap ra <r?]£ <7raXaia£, sixwv <5t <ra <r>]g xaiv^^ o«a&*]X»]s, 
aX^Saa $e *j tojv (xsXXovrwv xariff-Tao'ij. 

T Quod cum per manus hominum ad illam speciem perdu- 
citur, etc. 

u .... Si speciem visibilem intendas, aliud est, si intell- 
igibilem signiricationem, eundem potum spiritualem bibe- 
runt. 

v Recte etiam vini specie turn sanguis ejus exprimitur. 

w In ilium in quo fides non est prseter visibiles species pa- 
nis et vini, nihil de sacrificio pervenit. 

x Corporis et sanguinis sui sacramenta panis et vini sub- 
stantia discipulis tradidit Nihil ergo congruentius his 

speciebus ad significandam capitis et membrorum unitatem, 
potuit inveniri. 

Y Non potest intelligi aqua sine humectatione, neque ignis 
sine calore, neque lapis sine duritia. Unita enim sunt invi- 
cem hasc ; alterum in altero sej3arari non potest, sed semper 
coexistere. 



APPENDIX. 379 

z natia. yap tfoioT?]? sv outfia s<Jri. 

*Hg r [outfias] /xrj u'rap^ouo'rjj:, avvtfapy.rov eivai ttjv tfo»oT7]Ta. 

b M7j 6jvarai p^wpj^sa'Saj xaS' u-7ro(JTatfiv atfo tkjs- uXtjS *j 

c AXXa xav Xo/w (W.xpivrjs to Cx^f** ™u tfwfAaros, >j (pucig oy 
Trapads^srai ttjv (Wxc»<r»v, aXXa <Xuv/]^jasvw£ vocirai fiS^' e-Tcpou 

TO g-TtflOV. 

d . . . . O-7T0U <5' av (fovdpapr) ten. eiarjfASva Tigv tfwfxaTixyjv 
uiroflraCiv enrspya^erou. 

e OjTw <SiaXsfo/xsSa to tfveujxa to ay*ov, ?)v twv xaS' sauTo 
Uips^TiijxoTwv iravrug i/ffoSsrsov, rj twv tv stcou SewpoufAevwv gjv 
to fASv outflow xaXoutfjv o» Trcp» Taura <5;»voi, to <5e (f v [X [3 s (3 y)xog. 
Ei /Xfv tfuv tfu(/./3f^»]x£v, evepysia touto av g'wj ©sou. 

f Monstruosum enim et a veritate alienissimum est, ut id 
quod non esset, nisi in ipso [sc. sabjecto] esset, etiam, cum 
ipsum non fuerit, posse esse. 

s Mutato subjecto, omne quod in subjecto est necessario 
mutari. 

h Tolle ipsa corpora qualitatibus corporum, non erit ubi 
sint, et ideo necesse est ut non sint. 

1 Tr\v XsuxoT'/]T<x Tir^ov tj ttjv jxsXaviav .... avrag tfou xaS* 
eavrag ap' u^ap^siv o»>]3'7j Suva&at; oudapus. 

i . . . . asi yap flrapa<7r?(puxs Ta»£ rojauraig outfioug ra s£ 
auTwv Tixrofxsva. 

k Ubique totum praesentem esse non dubites tanquam Deum, 
et in eodem Temj>lo Dei esse tanquam inhabitantem Deum, 
et in loco aliquo coeli, propter veri corporis modum. 

1 Sursum est Dominus, sed etiam hie est Veritas Dominus. 
Corpus enim Domini in quo resurrexit, in loco esse oportet, 
Veritas ejus ubique diffusa est. 

m Secundum prsesentiam corporalem simul et in sole, et in 
luna, et in cruce esse non posset. 

n 2w^a 8s ofAwg S0T» tyjv irporspuv s^wv <xspiypu(py]v. 



380 APPENDIX. 

Homo, aut aliquid ei simile, cum alicubi erit; turn alibi 
non erit; quia illud quod est illic coutinentur ubi fuerit, in- 
firma ad id natura ejus, ut ubique sit qui insistens alicubi 
sit. 

p Deus totus in ccelo est, totus iu terra, non alternis tempori- 
bus, sed utrumque simul, quod nulla natura corporalis potest. 

i Quantumcumque sit corpus seu quantulumcunque cor- 
pusculum locioccupatspatium eundemque locum sic impleat, 
ut in nulla ejus parte sit totum. 

r Nee omnino potest esse aliquod corpus sive coelesti sive 
terrestre, sive aereum, sive humidum, quod non minus sit in 
parte quam in toto, neque ullo modo possit in loco hujus 
partis habere aliam partem. 

8 Ayysiov yap |XS(fyxvaiov, ou yupritfei (Jtjxs^ijxvov, ovds tfwfxaTor 
Svog ToffO£, <5uo ?} irXsiu c-oj/xa-ra. 

* Msto^ov solu7ou tfavTcXwj vj8sv. 

a AXX' STSpov Sv STSpu rfx^voi .... ovdsv yap sv kaure* xar- 
oixsi. 

v Corpus hominis non aliud intelligam quam quod videtur, 
quod tenetur. 

w Ac-wf/,«ro? wv, 8io xxi aopxroz, 

x ITorSpov tfwttee [Qsos~\ xxt 7rwr to xtfSipov, xxi xopurror, 
xxi tto"xrifutTi<fT09) xxi xvaye?, xa.\ xopx-ov; . . . . Iv yxp xvti\ 
fyvTit, c*w/J.arwv. 

7 OvX £(TTt tfWjua W TO ^pW^a, XXX TO (f^^X, XXI 7) XVTITV- 

•Tria, xai r) §ixo-?x*jii, to 0xpo^ xat rx "keiira tojv ititoipxruv 
ov irxpso-Tiv. 

z Semper quidem divinitate nobiscum est, sed nisi corpor- 
aliter abiret a nobis, semper ejus corpus carnaliter videre- 
mus. 

a Unaqu8eque res ita permanet sicut a Deo accepit ut esset, 
alia quidem sic, alia autem sic. Neque enim sic datum est 
corporibus ut sint sicut spiritus acceperunt. 



APPENDIX. 381 

LETTER XI. 
A Pene quidem sacramentum omnes corpus ejus dicunt. 

B H(X£ir tie tu rev tfetvro? S^tovpyu e y^apic-<royvrsr, x«< 
revs ixst' evx»pnrT(»r xxt w/^s <rr)r S7rt roig (5o&s»<y/ <7rpo*-a- 

etvjov t< x«6» ccyioiPav rovi f^sr vyiovs ■ffpoSsrews oeuTW j^pu/x.- 
Sv« &>£. 

c Accepit in manus quod norunt fideles, et ipse se portabat 
quodammodo, cum diceret, hoc est corpus meum. 

D Secundum quendam modum sacramentum corporis Christi 
corpus Christi est: sacramentum sanguinis Christi, sanguis 
Christi est. 

E Christus quodummodo ferebatnr in manibus suis. 

F Si sacramenta quandam similitudinem earum rerum non 
haberent quarum sacramenta sunt, omnino sacramenta non 
essent Ex hac autem similitudine plerumque etiam ipsarum 
rerum nomina accipiunt. 

G Forte dicis, speciem sanguinis non video, sed habet sim- 
ilitudinem. Sicut enim mortis similitudinem sumpsisti, ita 
etiam similitudinem pretiosi sanguinis bibis. 

H Panis quia confirraat corpus, ideo corpus Christi nuncu- 
patur; vinum autem quia sanguinem operatur in came, ideo 
ad sanguinem Christi refertur. 

1 Avrov (fufttx, vofM^siv .... To Ss rforriptov sv recgsi eti^aTog 

yyyeir^eu. 

J T; yeep eo-r/v 6 apror , SwfAce Xp/OVow. Tt Ss yivovrat oi 
liSTx\afA.l3xvovrsg $ 2w^a Xpicroy. Ovy^d^ccTcA^oKKcc, ukXoc 

K Accepto pane deinde vini calice, corpus esse suum ac san- 
guinem testatus. 

L Cum panem consecratum et vinum discipulis suis porrig- 
eret Dominus, sic ait, hoc est corpus meum. 

M Nos audiamus panem quem fregit Dominus deditque dis- 
cipulis suis esse corpus Salvatoris. 



382 APPENDIX. 

N Ebrietati sacrilegium copulantes aiunt, absit ut ego me 
abstineam a sanguine Christi. 

°Ita in sacramentorum communione se temperant, ut inter- 
dum tutius lateant; ore indigno corpus Christi accij>iunt, 
sanguinem autem redemptionis nostra? haurire omnino decli- 
nant. 

p Ipse Dorainus benedictum panem et calicem quern discip- 
ulis tradidit, corpus et sanguinem suum vocavit. 

QHoc est corpus meum ; id est, in sacramento. 

R Hoc panis est corpus meum. 

3 Mr)5sv <k"X£iov tov tfw/Aewo^ xai <rou a<fJL«T0£ rov Kvptov 
rfpogsvsyfisur), wrxui uvros- 6 Kvpios tfapsdutev, tovt' stfTi, ocprov 
xon oivov v^ocri ^xe/xj^/fjt-Svou. 

T Hoc, eo jubente, corpus Christi et sanguinem dicimns, 
quod dum fit ex fructibus terras sanctificatur et fit sacramen- 
tum, operante invisibiliter spiritu Dei. 

u Sanctificare aliquid, hoc est, vovere Deo. 

v To ety lafy&xi Xsyojxsvov, oa^i tfavro? ayiotd^ov (xers^ov s<r<r«ei, 
(rv}{xat\JSi da jxaXXov xxi to eir 8o%av uvxrs^ssiixsvov tw @sw. 

w Ayict^e&cti tow tottom^ rj rov ecprov. rj <rov ojvov, a <rw 0eu 
(pa/xev eupapiPs&xt, xai irpos jur^sfjuav xojvtjv vKocpspS(f^sai 

x Quod sanctificatur et offertur, eo quod offertur sanctificari 
incipit, ergo prius non erat sanctum. 

Y Quod in Domini mensa est — Benedicitur et sanctificatur. 

z Cum suscipitis corpus Domini, cum omni cantela et ven- 
eratione servatis, ne ex eo parum quid decidat, ne consecrati 
muneris aliquid dilabatur. 

a Ad distribuendum comminuitur. 

b De agni immaculati corpore partem sumere. 

c Qui creavit me (si fas est dicere) dedit mihi creare se, et 
qui creavit me sine me, creatur mediante me. 



. 



APPENDIX. 383 

d Ilia prolatis octo verbulis, Ecce Aacella Domini, fiat milxi 
secundum verbum tuum, semel concepit Dei filium et mundi 
Redemptorern, Isti a Domino consecrati, quinque verbis, eun- 
deui Dei virginisque filium advocant quotidie corporal iter. 
Attendite O sacerdotes in quo gradu et dignitate sitis constituti. 

e To ov ov yiveroci t olKKcc to jatj ov. 

f Nihil quod fieri habet, sine initio est, quin initium sit illi 
incipit fieri. 

s Omne quod fit, antequam fiat non fuit. 

h Quod fit incipit. 

1 Facere enim est quod omnino non erat. 

J Fieri ejus solet esse proprium, qui nunquam ante subsisterat. 

k Ou yeto cc9 8ri7rov to 7j<5tj ov sis' to Zivxi (pSpoiTo, ecXkct to (///j ov. 

1 Quse orta jam fuerint, redire in id rursum non queant ut 
nova creatione generentur. 

m E» svoirio-e, to fxvj ov <jr«vTWs- StfoisjO'S. 

n 'O ctoToG waX«v ecpTog sCti tzw$ xoivog" ctW otocv ccvtov to 
(AyCTrjpjov jSpoup^Tjfl'y], crw^ct Xpic-Tot/ Xsysrai rs km yivSTou. 

° Ytfoxu stto jxsv xa» Ayiu IIvci>/Ae6T» jva touto ysvu^e^u otfep 
stfTi y.cc\ XeySTCLi. 

PNon omnis panis, sed accipiens benedictionem Christi, 
fit corpus Christi. 

q E,tfixkri<feuT ySvofXSVTjf , 6 fjtsv ctpTog yivsrat cwfxa X^itfrov, 
6 8s oiv©£ cci^a XpitfTov. 

r Hoc quod conficimus corpus ex Yirgine est ... . vera uti- 
que caro Christi quaa crucifixa est, quas sej)ulta est. Veri ergo 
carnis illius sacramentum est. 



LETTER XII. 

A Alind est demutatio, aliud perditio. Perebit autcm de- 
mutata, si non ipsa permanserit in demutatione quae exhibita 



384 APPENDIX. 

fuerit in resurrectione Quomodo ergo quod perditum 

est, mutatum non est, ita quod mutatum est perditum non 
est. Perisse enim, est in totum non esse quod fuerit ; muta- 
tum esse, aliter esse est. 

B Nee videtur glorificatur nostra conditio unione Deitatis, 
sed potius esse consumpta, si non eadem subsistit in gloria, 
sed sola existente Deitate humanitas illio esse jam destitit. 
.... Per hoc non sublimata, sed abolita potius invenitur. 

c Si transfigurationem et conversionem in transitum sub- 
stantias cuj usque defendis, ergo et Saul in alium virum con- 
versus de corpore suo excessit. 

D To ytvsa-'hxi hv irxvTug (pvtfsug (fyjuiaivsi p.srot.fio\r\\>. 

E Ilavrws yay hv sxv ecpa-^airo to Ariov Hvsw^oe, touto v\y\a- 
crrai xxt iiSrx^3ef3X7}rai. 

F Per ignem Spiritus Sancti omnia quae cogitamus, loqui- 
mur ac facimus, in spiritualem substantiam convertuntur. 

G O»ov yxp ocv r\ t*j (pvtfsi to (UU£ts^o(X£vov, srpoS' tovto uvayxr] 
xai ro (juerf^ov (fv^srxTi^scf^sxi. 

H Dico proprie loquendo, quod transubstantiatio non est mu- 
tatio. 

1 Discant naturam posse converti, quando petra aquae fluxit, 
et ferrum aquae supernatavit. 

J Nonne claret naturam vel maritimorum fluctuum vel ilu- 
vialis cursus esse mutatam ? 

K Ei£ ^»ova {AS<ra/3aXXs<rSs«. 

L Tut tfroi^eia <nqv oixsiav ayvorjtfotvra (pu<r»v, tfpos to ^rjrf^ov 
exsivoig fX5ra/5c6XXoTVO, xa» Tec Sripia ovx s<n S*]p<«* ^v, o\)6s r\ 
xajavo^ xajjuvos 1 . 

M Per iniquitatem homo lapsus est a substantia in qua fac- 
tus est. 

N MsracVor^Siovfl'a jrpo£ <rov viov. 

As» aXkayr\vett xai |U,st ■a(3\v$nveu tocc, ■\>v/a4 W^v asro rris 
vvv xa.7a.tr roLfSifiig eig £<rsp*v x<«rao*Tao v »v xeu (ptxXiv Sstuv. 



APPENDIX. 385 

p Msra«n'oir]^r]V(X» ttj cpv&ii <7rpo£ to Ssiorspov. 

QDemutati in atomo erimus in angelicam substantiam. 

R Demutatio terrenorum corporum in spiritualem sethere- 
amque naturam. 

s Ei£ Ssjxtj* cpvtfiv aita^Teg fXSTa/SaAXovrai. 

T Veniat, veniat ut carnem reparet, animam innovet, ipsam 
naturam in coelestem cominutet substantiam. 

u 'AXXo £wjj£ sifiog auTTjj, <rr)g (putfewg jj/towv jxsracrro^Siwo'jj. 

v Caro mortalis convertitur in corpus angeli. 

w Cum induerit in corrupt] onem et immortalitatem, jam 
non caro et sanguis erit, sed in corpus coeleste mutabitur. 

X MsTCt T7]V OLVOLdrOL&lV TO [LSV CwfAOC (X2TarfT0l^£»'w&2V <JTpO£ TO 

a<p%apTov. 

Y Deus in hominem convertitur. 

z . . . . Unde rubet baptismus, nisi sanguine Christi con- 
secratus ? 

a Aia <rr\g rev levsu^arog evspysictg to aid^r\rov inSojp rfpog Ss»av 
Tjvct km appjjrov avatfroi^sioyTai <5dvo./juv. 

b Statim baptizatus in agni sanguine quern legebat, etc. 

c Asperges me aqua Filii tui sacro sanguine mixta. 

d Ingreditur anima vitales undas, velut rubras sanguine 
Christi consecratas. 

e Xpiffrov psroLirstfoirnkai tw jScwerKf (tar** 

f Susceptus a Christo, Christum suscipiens, non idem past 
lavacrum, qui ante baptismum fuit, sed corpus regenerati sit 
caro crucrfixi; hsec commutatio dextrae est Excelsi. 

g . . . » AyiccQet re Xoitfov rovg sv oig ctv yevoiro. 

h To vSup snrivoict (xovow Sicupopctv e%si nrpog to ifvevpec, zvezx 
Tat;Tov ecrri <tt] evspysicc, 

33 



386 APPENDIX. 

1 Aqua nostra suscipit raortuas et evomit vivos, ex animal- 
ibus veros homines factos ex hominibus in angelos transitu- 
ros. 

i Ev £ecvT(ji Qyig-stxi, <7favTw£ oXog z\$ s/jt-s /xsrarfre^s/ov ftsvo£. 

k Christi caro de utero virginis sumpta, nos suraus. 

1 Non aliud agit participatio corporis et sanguinis Christi, 
quam ut in id quod sumimus transeanius. 

m Nullus debet moveri. fidelium in illis, qui etsi legitime 
sana mente baptizantur, praeveniente velocius morte, carnem 
Domini manducare et sanguinem bibere non sinuntur propter 
illarn, videlicet, sententiam Salvatoris qua dixit; Nisi raan- 

ducaverites carnem Filii hominis, etc Quodquisquis 

.... mysterii veritatem considerare poterit in ipso lavacro 
sanctae regenerationishoc fieri providebit. 

n IloXXa Si av xai ?rspi ccutov "keyoiro tov Xo^ou, 6$ ysyove 
Capf, km akrfcivvi /3poj<r<g r,v rjva 6 (payuv wraairwr fytfSTct.t e»£ 
tov «iwv«6, ovdsvog fijvotpsvov (petuXou etfSusjv avryv x. <r. X. 

Dura non sunt sancti corpore et spiritu, nee comedunt 
carnem Jesu, neque bibunt sanguinem ejus, de quo loquitur; 
Qui comedit carnem meam, et bibit sanguinem meum habet 
vitam seternam. 

p De ipso pane et de ipsa Dominica manu, et Judas partem 
et Petrus accepit. 

i Illi manducabant Panem Dominum, ille panem Domini 
contra Dominum, illi vitam, ille poenam. 

r Hujus rei sacramentum, id est, unitatis corporis et san- 
guinis Christi in Dominica mensa praeparatur, et de 

Dominica mensa sumitur, quibusdam ad vitam ; quibusdam 
ad exitium. Res vero ipsa cujus et sacramentum est, omni 
homini ad vitam, nulli ad exitium quicunque ejus particeps 
fuerit. 

3 . . . . Nam qui discordet a Christo nee carnem ejus man- 
ducat, nee sanguinem bibit; etiamsi tantae rei sacramentum 
ad judicium suae prsesumptionis quotidie indiffereuter accip- 
iat. 

1 Cujus caro cibus credentium est. 



APPENDIX. 387 

u Caro ejus qui est esca sanctorum. 

v Hie est panis vitae. 

w Tctur tii fxsv roi rn^ ^pop^r /xsraXa/3wv, avwTSpos crfroti <rou 

x Sacramentum aliquod vobis commendavi : Spiritualiter 
intellectum vivificabit vos. Etsi necesse est illud visibiliter 
celebrari, oportet tamen invisibiliter intelligi. 

y Tunc autem hoc erit, id est, vita unicuique erit corpus et 
sanguis Christi, si, quod in sacramento visibiliter sumitur, 
in ipsa veritate spiritualiter manducetur, spiritualiter biba- 
tur. 

z Ipse dicens, qui manducat carnem meam et bibit sangui- 
nem meum, in me manet et ego in eo, ostendit quid sit, non 
sacramento tenus, sed revera corpus Christi mauducare et 
sanguinem ejus bibere. 

a Hujus sacrificii caro et sanguis ante adventum Christi per 
victimas similitudinem promittebatur, in passione Christi per 
ipsam veritatem reddebatur, post ascensum Christi per sacra- 
mentum memorise celebratur. 

h Hoc est, benedicens etiam passurus, ultimam nobis com- 
memorationem sive memoriam dereliquit. Quenadmodum si 
quis peregre proliciscens aliquid pignus ei quern diligit dere- 
linquat, ut quotiescunque illud viderit, possit ejus beneficia 
et amicitias memorari, quod ille, si perfecte dilexit, sine in- 
genti desiderio non possit videre, vel rletu. 

c Christus coram discipulis elevatus in ccelum, corporalis 
prsesentise modum fecit. 

<* Christus ad Patrem post resurrectionem victor ascendens, 
ecclesiam corporaliter reliquit. 



LETTER XIII. 

A Ou ya§ <Soy.y)tf£i rau-Ta, aXX' sv uTrotfTatfsi o\rfrs\a g sysvsro • 
Si 6s (XT) uv av^pwffo£ scpaivsro avSpwnrof , outs o r\v srf <xhr\hs\ct 
Sjxsivs TTVsufxa ©sou, sifSi aopaTov <ro <7rvsu/xa, outs aX^^sia tj£ r\v 
ctuTW ou yap i}V sxs»va atfsp S(pccivSTo. 



388 APPENDIX. 

B Ecce fallit et decipit et circumvenit omnium occulos om- 
nium sensus, omnium accessus et contactus. Ergo jam Chris- 
tum non de ccelo deferre debueras, sed de aliquo circulatorio 
ccetu. 

c Sufficit mini hoc definire, quod Deo congruit, veritatem 
scilicet illius rei, quam tribus testibus sensibus objicit, visui, 
tactui, auditui. 

D Jam Deum tuum honoras fallacise titulo, si aliud se esse 
sciebat, quam quod homines fecerat opinari. 

E Cur autem inspectui eorum manus et pedes suos offert, 
etc. 

F Ne ipsi quidem occuli fallunt; non enim renunciare pos- 

santanimo nisi affectionem suam Quern oculus recte 

videt; ad hoc enim, factus est ut tantum videat; sed animus 
perverse judicat. 

G . ... Si forte diceremus Thomae oculos fuisse deceptos, 
at non possemus dicere manus frustratas, in resurrectionia 
enim manifestatione de aspectu ambigi potest de tactu non 
potest dubitari. 

H Illud est quod Magise simile dicimini asserere, etc. 

1 Qui nisi dsemones, quibus arnica fallacia est ? 

J . . . . Potest fortasse aliqua oculos caligo decipere, palpa- 
tio corporalis verum corpus agnoscat. 

K Tollit stultissimam eorum termeritatem. 

L IIw£ (fvKkricpSsig tfraupoucai, 6 (xrj vie'' acpyjv u*w»<7r<rwv xara 
tov o*ov Xoyov; — ou yap dvvucroii (pavTacfrav opj^siv tov uflVepov 
utt' acpsjv flrnrrovTa 8sixv\jpsvov. 

M IloSev 7] xXatfic: tou aprou Sysvsro, 

N Cum sacramenta signa sint rerum, aliud existentia, et 
aliud significantia. 

° To (Satfrtftia. -/jfxwv 6u roig ai&riToig opSaXfAoi£ xaravo^rsov, 
aXXa roig vorjpoir. 

p Non debetis aquas illas oculis sestimare sed mente. 



APPENDIX. 389 

Q . . . . Non ergo solis corporis tui credas oculis. Magis 
videtur, quod non videtur. 

R Illa multo majora sunt quae non videntur quam quae vi- 
dentur: quoniam quae videntur temporalia sunt, quae non 
videntur seterna. 

s Mtj ug vSari X»tw rfpotfsX'hs <rw Xot/<rpw* aXXa ttj jxsra rov 
vduTo; (5i(5o/x£V7) tfvsviMtrtxYi ^ap»<ri.. 

T IlsjSwjxsSa tojvwv vr\ aifocpo.tfsi <rou Gsov 6 o^£w£ o/ap £oViv 
aurr) iricrTorepa. 

u E» <5s xai to (paivofxsvov oux sCti Xp/o J To^, aXX* £v <rov<rw 
C^rjjuiaTi auTos Xa[A/3av£i xa» TpoCajTSi. 

v Orav ti srfn jtty] (paivsrai aXX' o^rsp jxrj srfri <$£ixvu<ra<. 

w . . . . ars ou "7rXarTo/xevoi ou^s -^su^t] Xsvov<rS£. 

x . . . . xai yivcra» tjjxwv 6 o<pSaX/jt,o£ epjUtTjvsug r^j tfavro- 
<5uvajaoy Co(p»ar .... 

T . . . . wacTr]^ zpyatfiag vcpnyrirai xa» (Sj&xa'xaXoi yivovrai, 
xa» t?]S a-7rXavoug o<$9J , 7rop»a£ o<5r)^o» Cu/X(pu£<g xai ap£wp»(7<ro». 

Z E« fXrv ouv £x twv tfpoc: aio*S'»jfl'»v xofi vo^tfiv £vap^wv ap^airo 
Tig .... ovtws a<7ro$£ixvua'jv. 

a A'^pfg av sig to, z\ £au<rwv tfiaV* ava<5pa{xwfjt,£v. x. <r. X. 

b . . . . Non licet, non licet nobis in dubium sensus istos 
devocare, etc. 

c . . . . qui nee vocabula ista in luce proprietatum suarum 
conservant. 

d . . . . Quod ergo videtis panis est et calix, quod vobis 
etiam oculi vestri renunciant. Quod autem fides vestra pos- 
tulat instruenda, Panis est corpus Christi, calix sanguis Chris- 

ti Quomodo est panis corpus est? Ista, fratres ideo 

dicuntur sacramenta, quia in eis aliud videtur, aliud intelli- 
getur. Quod videtur, speciem habet corporalem; quod intel- 
ligitur, fructum habet spiritalem. Corpus ergo Christi si vis 
intelligere, Apostolum audi dicentem Fidelibus: Vos estis 
corpus Christi et membra. 

33* 



390 APPENDIX. 

6 IIsiSw^cv tojvvv 7rav<rc/)£ou tw @sw, xai jj^sv wvriXsn/ttfASv. 
x. <r. X. 



LETTER XIV. 

A . . . . Mia yap stfnv 73 tfap£ rou Kupiou I-^tfou, xai sv aurov 
to aifxa to uTSp tjolwv sx^ySsv eig xai ap<ro£ toi$ tfatfiv e3-pi>(pS?], 
xai sv ^■oryj^jov toi£ oXoi£ ^JcvsfjUTj^rj. 

B E<7ti £s offou oufo (SisaV^xsv 6 ispSug tou ap^o/xsvou* o«ov oTav 
atfo'kaveiv 8st) twv (ppiwwv fAuflTTjpiwv o|Aoioj£ yap tfavTSf a|iou/xsSa 
<rwi> auTwv 6u xaSaorsp sti ttjs IlaXaiag, Ta (xsv 6 ispsus rjtfSric, 
Ta 6s 6 ap^efxgveg, xai &efAig oux •jgv tw Xaw jxsts^sjv cZiw fASTgi- 
^sv 6 ispsu£. AXX ov vuv aXXa tf-atfiv sv tfw^a <nrpoxsi-rai, xai 

<7ro-T3jpiOV SV. 

c Indignum est Domino qui mysterium aliter celebrat, 
quam ab eo, traditum est. Non enim potest devotus esse qui 
aliter prsesumit dare quam datum est ab authore. 

D Corpus Christi non est sacramentaliter sub specie vini, 
nee sanguis sacramentaliter sub specie panis, ergo, ut sacra- 
mentaliter sumatur Christus, necesse est ut sumatur sub dua- 
bus speciebus. 

E Cum Pontifex corpus Christi sumpserit, Episcopus Cardi- 
nalis porrigit ei calamum, quern Papa ponit in calice in man- 
ibus Diaconi existente, et sanguinis partem sugit. 

F . . . . Item ipsa sancta synodus decermit et declarat, su- 
per ista materia, reverendis in Christo patribus et patriarchis, 
etdominis, ut effectualiter puuiant eos contra hoc decretum 
excedeutis, qui communicandum populum sub utraque spe- 
cie panis et vini exhortati fuerint. 



LETTER XV. 

A Oi ouv 7014 rfpotfrttayixsvots xaipoi£ -ttoiouvtss ra£ trporfcpopag 
aurwv, sy^o^Sx-Toi 78 xai jxaxapiai. 

B Tov Sriixiovpyov rovSs Toy <7rav-T0g tfS/So(XSvo» avsv^sn] aijxaTWV 
xai tfirov^wv xai SujXiafJiaTwv. 



APPENDIX. 391 

c Offert Deo ei qui nobis alimenta praestat, primitias suo- 
rum munerum .... primitias Deo offere ex suis creaturis, 
etc. 

D In Dominicum sine sacrificio venis, quae partem de sacri- 
ficio, quod pauper obtulit, sumis. 

E Oblationes quae in altari consecrantur offerte, erubescere 
debet homo idoneus, si de aliena oblatione communicet. 

F Proinde verum sacrificium est omne opus quod agitur. 
. . . . Hoc est sacrificium Christionorum; multi unum corpus 
in Christo, Quod etiam sacramento altaris fidelibus noto fre- 
quentat ecclesia, ubi ei demonstratur, quod in ea re quam 
offert, ipsa offeratur. 

G . . . . Nihil aliud quam sacrificio sacrificium praelatum 
oportet intelligi: quoniam illud quod ab omnibus appella- 
tur sacrificium, signum est veri sacrificii. 

H . . . . Tovto etg avaftvyjC/v yivsrai rov rors ^svo/xsvou. 

1 Mvrj/<,rjv ?j/xiv tfupsduxs avr* %v<fias <rw @ew <Si7jvsxw£ «7rpo(f(p- 



J Eu^ai xai eu^apitfTjai wo «rwv a£iwv ympsvai TsXe»a» jxovai 
xai £uap££<rai Sio*i ra 0sw. 

K Sequitur ut eadem ratione pro aliis non sacrifiicemus, 
quia nee pro nobis ipsis. 

L Ei offero opimum et majoiem hostiam .... orationem 
de carne pudica, de anima innocenti de Spiritu Sancto pro- 
fectam. 

M Aftvov ©sou ocSsvrug vrfo <rwv ispswv Sao/xsvov. 

N Offertur in imagine. 

°Quod sit in figuram corporis et sanguinis Domini. 

p Jam Christiani peracti ejusdem sacrificii memoriam cele- 
brant sucrosancta oblatione et participatione corporis et san- 
guinis Christi. 

Q ©aufxatfiov St/jxa xai (ftpa^iov sgaipsrov <r<w IIa<rpi xaAXiSprj- 
tfa[A£vo£ u^cp <r/)£ 'ifiwv avrjvsyxs (furripiag, (avtj/ji>jv xai rjfjwv 
irapadovs av<ri ^sva-iag tw ©sw ^i^jvsxw^ «jrpod , <pspejv. 



392 APPENDIX. 

R ©utfia <5s % tw ©sw ^sxryj, tfwfxaToc; ts xai twv toutoi* <7raSwv 
a{*STavo'/]To£ ^wpitf/xog, »j aXTjSyjg tw ovti Ssofl'S/Ssja at/T'/j. 

s . . . . Ilavra raura XsXuTai, xai avTSitfsvvjvsxTai avTi 
toutwv '/j Xoyix*; yarpsta. Ti 5' Sflriv >j Xo^ixrj XaTpsia ; Ta <$ioo 
■^ux^Si Ta & a wsv^oLTGg. x. t. X. 

T Kai Xoiffov acroxo^rj <W rr\g evtfapxou -jrapoutfiag r*]£ tou 
Xpitfrou auTou to tfav Tiqs ugroSgtfswg twv Suffiwv Trjg (juag Sodas 
TsXsiwtfatfrjs rag flfpou'rrap^afl'ag cratfag ?j Tig sflVi Sfutfia XpiffTou. 
On to Ilatf^a tjjxwv STu^rj Xpiflrog, xaTa to ys^pa^svov. 



LETTER XVI. 

A f O Qsog iXaffS^Ti fxoi afAaprwXw. 

B Toto die ad hanc partem zelus fidei perorabit, ingemens 
Christianum ab idolis in ecclesiam venire: de adversaria 
officina in domnm Dei venire: attolleread Deum Patrem ma- 
nus, matres idolorum: his manibus adorare quae foris ad ver- 
sus Deum adorantur: eas manus admovere corpori Domini, 
qua3 daemoniis corpora conferunt. 

c Ou5s x s P s $ (pprftioufiv, s<rrr]v sg jxurfTiv e8u8r\v. Tsivsig aig tfu 
ypatpsig <rrcvSi{Xov ay\airiv. 

D Exao v Tjv tou Xaou Xa/3eiv t/jv jaoipav etfiTpstfoutfiv. 

E Kai sv <rr\ gxxX^tfia 6 tSpevg s<jri8i8u<ft ttjv jxepi^a, xai xarsy^si 
auTigv 6 virodsy^o^svog jxst' ggoutfiag affatfiis, xai o-jtw flrpotfa^ei tw 
CTOjXaTI T7) i(5ia X £, P'» 

F Ou -s^iXw tw (XsXavi Ta p(Sipoypa<pa ■jroioujxsvoi, aXXa .... 

gv auTw tou 2wT?jpo£ tw aijxaTi (3<zirTovTSg T75V xaXafi,ov outws 
gjjsx?)pu2;av <I>wtiov. 

g Ttjv siti tou (JYaapou u-^wtfiv, xai tov gv auTw 3-avaTov xai 
auTTjv T7)v avatfTatfiv. 

H e O $' ispsug /xsTatf^wv twv a^iatfjxaTwv, tfpog to TrXyjSog 
gtfjrfTps<pSTai, xai (Jtigag Ta a^ia xaXsi Toug fj-STatf^csiv /3ouXo- 

fAeVOUg. 



APPENDIX. 393 

1 (a) tfs/3siv, xai etfSisiv <rt cr'pofl'xuvoujasvwv. 
l6) Svsig tfpo/3aTov, to (5s auTo xai qrpotfxuvsis. 

J A»a touto <ra /u-sv axaSapra twv £wwv X£ysi, ra <Ss xa^apa, 
iva <ra jxsv tog axaSapTa /3(5sXuTTOfA£voi /xjj &so*oiwtfi, Ta ($£ ^rj 

tfpofl'xuvGja'iv stfSio/ASva. A/3sXTyjpia£ yap stf^aTTjs to s<;Sio/a£vov 

tfpotfxuVSlV. 

KDeos vestros plerumque in praedam furibus cedere. 

L Quanto verius de diis vestris animalia muta naturaliter 
judicant, mures, hirundines, milvi; non sentire eos sciunt, 
rodunt, insultant, insident, ac nisi abigatis, in ipso dei vestri 
ore nidificant; araneae vero faciem ejus intexunt. 

M T">jv sixova uXtjv sfaipSTov, Tjyouv apTou outfiav, irpotfsrags 
tfpotf<pspso*Sai, fjt,y) 6-xr\^oL<n£ ) S<l'hcu avSpwrou fJt-op(p>jv, iva (xorj 
si5wXoXaTpsia irapsio~a;)($7]. 

N Opa£ sv Sufl'iao'T^piw. 

° Stephanas in terris positus Christum tangit in ccelo. 

p Ibant Christiani Hierosolymam ut Christum in illis ado- 
rarent locis in quibus primum Evangelium de patibulo corus- 
caverat. 

Q 2^y][jux ixstwv xai <?rpotfxuvj}T6Jv £^wjx£v. 

E AXXo tfpotfxuvsiv, xai aXXo XaTpsus.'v. 'O (xsv yap sg oXi^ 
-^X 7 ^ <5ouXcuwv toutoij [sc. si^wXois] ou (xovov «7rpotfxuvsi, aXXa 
xai XaTp£u£i. 'O <5s xaS&tfoxpivo|asvo£, xai <W Ta £^v»j tfoiwv, 
ou XaTpsusi (A?v, tfpotfxuvsi <5s. 

8 . . . . Ou XaTpsuoutfi fxsv, •rpoa'xuvoufl'i 5s roig si<5wXoi£ .... 

TIuXtj yap wtfTSp ti£ sCti, xai o<5o£ t?]£ £v spyo»£ XaTpsiag *j 
crpoCxuvyjCis, ap^TQv s^ouffa, (JouXsiav t^v ug rrpog 0£ov. 

u "Otfoj av <pavoT£pa xai avayxatfTixwTSpa ^ Ta yivojxsva, 
TotfouTw Ta T^g iritfrsug sXaTTouvTar &a touto rfr]jx£ia vuv 6u 
yiv£Tai .... Ouxouv oVgj av (pavspwTepov a<7ro(5£i^&^ to Ctj^jov, 

TOtfoUTCJ Tir]£ <ffKfTSug 6 /XI0*^0£ sXXaTTOUTai. fttfTS Si xai vuv 
C>5/jL£ia eysvSTo, to duTo av S^eVSTO. 



V 



LIBRARY OF CONGRESS 

mil 



021 062 887 3 



I 



